# Megalopolis



## hkskyline

There is a difference between a megalopolis and grouping several urban areas in close proximity together. I wonder what is the rationale in combining some of these cities into a megalopolis.

There is a *a lot* of empty space between Buffalo and Rochester.


----------



## Manila-X

I have never been to this area so I wouldn't know. But Toronto and Buffalo are pretty close.


----------



## *UofT*

For pictorial reference, As can be seen the North East Corridor is Massive along with San-Diego-Tijuana Region.


Chicago-Milwaukee is Decent size, 

And I'm kind of Disappointed with the Toronto-Buffalo axis.


----------



## *UofT*

And the cities that can be seen from that shot are

Minnesota, Dallas, Houston and Atlanta

Each with a showing of decent size.


----------



## staff

Some "megalopolises" are a bit stretched I think...

I'ma do it myself and form the Öresund-Hamburg-Ruhr-Deltametropolis-Brussels-London-Paris-Luxembourg-Frankfurt-Stuttgart-Zürich-Milan Megalopolis. I wonder how large the population and economy would be for that sucker... If these cities were built like North American ones they would most likely form a continous urban agglomeration stretching from southern Scandinavia to northern Italy. :lol:










:lol:


----------



## bay_area

Southern California and Northern California are developing into 2 distinct megalopoli. By 2050, The Los Angeles-San Diego Megalopolis will have between 30-40 Million people and The San Francisco-Sacramento Megalopolis will have 20-30 Million people-depending on whose estimates you go by. Both megalopoli by then might also be consolidated metropolitan areas if interdependent commuter trends continue, especially in Northern California.

Here's a density map from 2000. The California Department of Finance projects 8 Million new residents for SF-Sac and 9 Million new residents for LA-SD in the coming decades. fairus.org estimates California will have 82 Million people by 2050-which I personally think is outrageous, but who knows?


----------



## DarkLite

with the prices in california, how can anyone move there except for the poorer people?


----------



## hkskyline

WANCH said:


> I have never been to this area so I wouldn't know. But Toronto and Buffalo are pretty close.


Not really. It's an hour and a half drive and people very rarely commute from one to the other. Commuter rail stops half way through the distance. There's only one border crossing for cars to Buffalo compared to three in the Niagara Falls area further north.


----------



## Justme

Here is a list from the printed copy of the magazine that published the article. Unfortunately, it only shows 2/3rds of the US and misses out the West Coast (so no LA, SF etc). Likewise, the European map ignores much of Eastern Europe including Greece, Russia and Turkey (so no Moscow, SP and Istanbul etc)

The names given here are what they are called in the Newsweek article.

*North America*
*Bos-Wash:* (Boston, NY, Philly, Washington): 54.8million
*Chi-Pitts:* (Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Detroit, Cincinnati, Chicago, Minneapolis): 45.0million
*Tor-Buf-Chester:* (Toronto, Buffalo, Rochester, Ottawa, Montreal): 20.1million
*Chatlanta:* (Atlanta, Charlotte, Raleigh): 19.6million
*So-Flo:* (Miami, Tampa, Orlando, Jacksonville): 13.7million
*Gulf Coast:* (Houston, New Orleans): 9.3million
*Daustin:* (Dallas, San Antonio, Austin) 9.1million

*Europe*  
*Euro Lowlands:* (Ruhr-Cologne, Amsterdam-Rotterdam, Brussels-Antwerp, Lille): 50.0million
*Greater London:* (London, Manchester-Liverpool, Leeds-Sheffield, Birmingham): 49.1million
*Urb-Italy:* (Milan, Rome, Turin): 46.9million
*Euro Sunbelt:* (Barcelona, Marseille, Valencia, Lyon): 24.8million
*Euro Heartland:* (Frankfurt, Stuttgart, Mannheim): 22.0million
*Euro-East:* (Katowice, Budapest, Vienna): 20.1million
*Greater Paris* 14.6million
*Greater Prague* 10.6million
*Lis-Port:* (Lisbon, Port): 9.7million
*Greater Madrid:* 5.8million
*Greater Glasgow:* 3.8million
*Greater Dublin:* 3.5million

*East Asia*  
*Greater Toyko:* 54.7million
*Shang-King:* (Shanghai, Nanjing, Hangzhou): 50.5million
*Greater Seoul:* (Seoul, Busan, Daegu, Taejon, Gwangiu): 43.8million
*Hong-Zen:* (Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Hong Kong) 40.0million
*Greater Beijing:* (Beijing, Tianjin, Tangshan): 36.5million
*Mid-Japan:* (Osaka, Nagoya): 36.1million
*Ky-Fuko-Shima:* (Fukuoka, Hiroshima, Kitakyusha): 20.0million
*Greater Taipei):* 16.7million
*Greater Sapporo:* 4.6million

It is clear that many of the comments in the article contrast with the maps they supplied. But it is still interesting if an incomplete and simplified discussion


----------



## ReddAlert

Yeah, those sound a bit....extended. Montreal and Toronto in the same grouping? And Minneapolis is a bit too far away to be apart of the Chi-Pitts metro (no mention of Milwaukee again!! Its true that the media forgets about this damn city :bash: ).


----------



## ♣628.finst

Actually the definition of "Megalopolis" is fairly subjective. But I think a continuous urban/suburban development is an indicator for a megalopolis to form. American sprawls between cities easily create some sort of megalopolis--- like those in Pacific Northwest, California, Sheboygan-Chicago-Pittsburgh-Cincinnati-Cleveland-Syracuse (Great Lakes Area) or Bos-Wash, Florida, San Antonio-Dallas, Greater Atlanta, etc. European cities tend to create sprawls at later stage of its development (I mean their population density is much higher). Bubarely form 2 small metrot, I think only 1 or 2 megalopolises is noticeable in this region. Asian cities, with density even higher, create sprawls very easily by adding new areas to the surrounding region, but that's largely because of the very high density around those heavily populated areas. Northern Plain of China, though heavily populated, it's far from being a "megalopolis". Rather it's a very dense area of agriculture dotted with industrial centres--- but their area is largely rural, with limited mobility compared to American or European cities, thus even in China, only 4 or 5 megalopolis could be identified. And in Asia in general: Singapore-Kuala Lumpur, Sendai-Fukuoka Japan, Greater Beijing, Greater Shanghai, Greater Hong Kong, Taiwan Island, Greater Manila, Greater Bangkok, Greater Delhi, Greater Mumbai, Greater Jakarta, Seoul-Busan. Most "Greaters" are very isolated from each other, mostly by dense rural areas with limited mobility. Similar kind of megalopolis are found in Latin America and Africa. In Australia you have Greater Melbourne or Greater Sydney (or even Greater Brisbane/Greater Perth/Greater Adelaide), but the population is fairly small for latter smaller ones, thus they don't really have megalopolis, yet.


----------



## bayviews

hkskyline said:


> Not really. It's an hour and a half drive and people very rarely commute from one to the other. Commuter rail stops half way through the distance. There's only one border crossing for cars to Buffalo compared to three in the Niagara Falls area further north.


Very true. 

Toronto's growing in all directions. But not much toward Buffalo. Despite the amazing sklyine boom in Nigara Falls Ontario, the Niagara Peninsula, a traditional retirement belt, actually remains one of the slowest growing metros in Canada. 

The complexity of the US-Canada border crossing & the huge demographic contrast between Toronto & Buffalo also work to keep these places seperate.


----------



## LLoydGeorge

Justme said:


> Here is a list from the printed copy of the magazine that published the article. Unfortunately, it only shows 2/3rds of the US and misses out the West Coast (so no LA, SF etc). Likewise, the European map ignores much of Eastern Europe including Greece, Russia and Turkey (so no Moscow, SP and Istanbul etc)
> 
> The names given here are what they are called in the Newsweek article.
> 
> *North America*
> *Bos-Wash:* (Boston, NY, Philly, Washington): 54.8million
> *Chi-Pitts:* (Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Detroit, Cincinnati, Chicago, Minneapolis): 45.0million....


The distance from Boston to DC is about 450 miles, and all of the population is concentrated no further than 50 miles west of the Atlantic coast. Also, the area is almost continuously populated by towns. 

By contrast, from Pittsburgh to Minneapolis is 900 miles, and there's a lot of undeveloped land and farms in between. That area is not a megalopolis. 

The Northeastern US is the only true megalopolis in America.


----------



## DarkLite

LLoydGeorge said:


> The distance from Boston to DC is about 450 miles, and all of the population is concentrated no further than 50 miles west of the Atlantic coast. Also, the area is almost continuously populated by towns.
> 
> By contrast, from Pittsburgh to Minneapolis is 900 miles, and there's a lot of undeveloped land and farms in between. That area is not a megalopolis.
> 
> The Northeastern US is the only true megalopolis in America.


 would Miami, Ft Lauderdale, and West Palm Beach area be considered a megalopolis?


----------



## LLoydGeorge

joaquin said:


> would Miami, Ft Lauderdale, and West Palm Beach area be considered a megalopolis?


Not really. It's one metropolitan area. Then again, the distance between WPB and Miami is only slightly less than the distance from NYC to Philly, and people freak out when it's noted that they have become one metro area of over 30m people.


----------



## TopperCity

really cool pics!


----------



## Justme

LLoydGeorge said:


> The distance from Boston to DC is about 450 miles, and all of the population is concentrated no further than 50 miles west of the Atlantic coast. Also, the area is almost continuously populated by towns.
> 
> By contrast, from Pittsburgh to Minneapolis is 900 miles, and there's a lot of undeveloped land and farms in between. That area is not a megalopolis.
> 
> The Northeastern US is the only true megalopolis in America.


Keep in mind that I simply copied the data from the magazine which had the article. I made no judgement regarding it.

Still, it is clear that they used a different definition of megalopolis than you or I. However, it is also important to point out, that the American definition of "continuously populated by towns", may differ dramatically from other countries definition.


----------



## bay_area

> Not really. It's one metropolitan area. Then again, the distance between WPB and Miami is only slightly less than the distance from NYC to Philly, and people freak out when it's noted that they have become one metro area of over 30m people.


That's because distance and built up area are not factors in determining whether or not 2 Metro Areas combine. There isnt real commuter percentages between the two to warrant even considering such consolidations. Perhaps in urban agglomeration they are one, but as far as a single Metro area? nope.


----------



## FastWhiteTA

chicagogeorge said:


> Here is a map that shows how close New York City and Philadelphia are to combining into one metro. By 2020, the two metro's might be combined with an estimated population of 28 million people.
> 
> 
> Here is Los Angeles and San Diego. I estimate that they will be one metropolitan area by 2025, with at least 23 million people.
> 
> 
> Chicago, Milwaukee and a few adjacent areas will most likely combine by 2020, to form a metropolis of 14 million people.


In order for them to be one metro area, they have to be somewhat connected as far as commuter patterns. I don't think enough people from Philly will be commuting to NYC in the near future to meet that criteria of one metro.


----------



## Æsahættr

socal should include tijuana and other baja cities


----------



## LLoydGeorge

lotrfan55345 said:


> socal should include tijuana and other baja cities


That's true. I haven't been to SoCal for years, but from what I recall, LA, SD and Tiajuana are one contiguous, densely populated area.


----------



## Rufus

there is still talk of how the bo-wash megapolis is spreading further south. though still far away in time, could it reach to NC metros? also the chatlanta megapolis is still under consideration, but it could be considered one because of charlotte and atlanta's financial and economic power in the country, and add the remaining NC metros (mainly the I-40 crescent, but wilmington and asheville could fit in as well), birmingham and even TN cities to that and you have one of the top financial regions in the country. 19.6 million could well reach over 21 or 22 million with those additions, not to mention the boom expected in raleigh, charlotte, and atlanta in the next decade. we could see something close to 30 million in 20 years time. dont quote me on that because its just spec.


----------



## Xusein

A megapolitan resident right here...

400 miles of continuous urban and suburban development between Boston and DC is still a little of an exaggeration though. While this can be true between DC-Baltimore, Philly-NYC, and Providence-Boston...Connecticut breaks it, east of New Haven until 80 miles in Providence, except for some areas, between these cities, is rural land...


----------



## ChunkyMonkey

I agree that there is really only 1 major megalopolis in the U.S. the BosWash corridor. The entire region is not just physically close but infrastructurally close, hence the Delta/US Airways Shuttle, Acela. None of this is found in any of the other "megalopoli"

I see further integration between cities in the Bos-Wash. It's already happening with commuter in Boston going into Providence and soon to T.F. Green Airport. Providence is now seen as a southern suburb of Boston.


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor

*So-Cal*

Why is the area that comprises of Greater Los Angeles, San Diego, and Tijuana called *So*-Cal? What does So mean? Thanks.


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor

*Chi-Pitts*

Why is it that a lot claim that Bos-Wash is the only true megalopolis in the United States of America when there is also an equally important and a much more spread out megalopolis than Bos-Wash, the Chi-Pitts area? 

*I mean, that area produces US$ 2.3 trillion worth of annual GDP!*


----------



## Xusein

^^ Southern California.

Hopefully, one day, it could be one giant metropolis, the Megalopolis...it would be great if Hartford would get commuter rail to Boston, like Providence...but this won't happen now...Hartford seems more gravitated to NYC, as commuter rail will be planned to eventually be connected there, through transfer to New Haven...

One day, everything between DC, Baltimore, Philly, NYC, and Boston will be suburbs...and Connecticut is already a state of suburbs...imagine in 25 years...hopefully we can replicate Japan...I hope...


----------



## Manila-X

The Cebuano Exultor said:


> Why is the area that comprises of Greater Los Angeles, San Diego, and Tijuana called *So*-Cal? What does So mean? Thanks.


That's because it's Southern California  Tijuana is in Mexico but it's unofficialy part of that urban area.


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor

*@ rotten777*

I think Northeast Corridor need not beat Japan because it already beat the Japan Megalopolis (Tokaido-Sanyo Corridor).

I believe that despite the larger population and greater population density of the Tokaido-Sanyo Corridor, the American Northeast Corridor or Bos-Wash Megalopolis trumps it by overall economic/financial clout, importance , and hegemony. And seeing from nightlight satellite images, Northeast Corridor is far larger than the *Japan Megalopolis* in overall sprawl.


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor

*@ WANCH re: Wanchtography 2006*

Where...when...? 
:eek2: :bow: :eek2:


----------



## Xusein

The Cebuano Exultor said:


> Why is it that a lot claim that Bos-Wash is the only true megalopolis in the United States of America when there is also an equally important and a much more spread out megalopolis than Bos-Wash, the Chi-Pitts area?
> 
> *I mean, that area produces US$ 2.3 trillion worth of annual GDP!*


Chi-Pitts is more spread out, that's the difference.

The Megalopolis, while big, has not been the only major economy in the US. But the difference is that that much money comes from that little area, while the rest of the country is spread out.

The SD-LA-SF corridor in California is an exception to this, though.


----------



## Xusein

The Cebuano Exultor said:


> I think Northeast Corridor need not beat Japan because it already beat the Japan Megalopolis (Tokaido-Sanyo Corridor).
> 
> I believe that despite the larger population and greater population density of the Tokaido-Sanyo Corridor, the American Northeast Corridor or Bos-Wash Megalopolis trumps it by overall economic/financial clout, importance , and hegemony. And seeing from nightlight satellite images, Northeast Corridor is far larger than the *Japan Megalopolis* in overall sprawl.


I didn't mean in those ways.

I meant that the Megalopolis could learn from Japan in infrastructure. Japan is WAY ahead of this region in public transportation. It would be great if the commuter rail was as extensive as in Tokyo, to connect DC to Boston in that little amount of time.

Acela does not count...it could be faster if they invested in rail as well as the Japanese...we could also use more high-rises in the suburbs as well...


----------



## sharpie20

I think in the future, perhaps several hundered years from now, the world will reorginize it's self in to city states, the notion of nation will be lost, and the world will be guided by the most powerful and able of these city states.


----------



## LLoydGeorge

rotten777 said:


> I didn't mean in those ways.
> 
> I meant that the Megalopolis could learn from Japan in infrastructure. Japan is WAY ahead of this region in public transportation. It would be great if the commuter rail was as extensive as in Tokyo, to connect DC to Boston in that little amount of time.
> 
> Acela does not count...it could be faster if they invested in rail as well as the Japanese...we could also use more high-rises in the suburbs as well...


The Northeastern US is the only part of the country where rail travel makes sense and is in demand. Unfortunately, the rest of the country dislikes the liberal Northeast and Congress won't appropriate funds to places like NY, Boston, etc. Do you recall the Republicans reviling Massachusetts as
Tax-achusetts during the last election? These guys won't give NY the money it deserved to fight terrorism, and they're certainly not going to spend money on new tracks for NY, Boston, etc.


----------



## polako

LLoydGeorge said:


> The Northeastern US is the only part of the country where rail travel makes sense and is in demand. Unfortunately, the rest of the country dislikes the liberal Northeast and Congress won't appropriate funds to places like NY, Boston, etc. Do you recall the Republicans reviling Massachusetts as
> Tax-achusetts during the last election? These guys won't give NY the money it deserved to fight terrorism, and they're certainly not going to spend money on new tracks for NY, Boston, etc.


I don't think it has to do with the NE leaning liberal. In 2004 the NE Corridor Bosh-Wash went for Kerry 55:45 meaning there are plenty of Republicans even in MA. The problem is that even though the NE might be the only region in the country where rail travel makes sense and is in demand because of the high population density it is still not profitable. And you know how tough it is for the gov't to invest in some struggling system when you can invest in the profitable defense and oil companies.


----------



## Gjm130

Then where would you put Montreal? in the Bos-Wash? Because it's on the same line and it's population is 3.4 million.


----------



## Sielbeck

*UofT* said:


> For pictorial reference, As can be seen the North East Corridor is Massive along with San-Diego-Tijuana Region.
> 
> 
> Chicago-Milwaukee is Decent size,
> 
> And I'm kind of Disappointed with the Toronto-Buffalo axis.



Judging by this picture, I would say that Vancouver to Portland looks pretty good sized. Is it too far-fetched to call that a megalopolis? BTW, I agree with Chicago-Milwaukee.


----------



## Indyman

If Cincinnati is included in Chi-Pitts does that mean Indy is as well?


----------



## Azia

*Boswash*

I think that the norteast boswash is one of the biggest metro areas worldwide (ex. Tokyo , Perlriver delta and LA) .Boswash must be around 80 Million from Washington to Boston , and NYC and Philly are one big urban core with around 30 million :banana: :cheers:


----------



## Justme

Azia said:


> I think that the norteast boswash is one of the biggest metro areas worldwide (ex. Tokyo , Perlriver delta and LA) .Boswash must be around 80 Million from Washington to Boston , and NYC and Philly are one big urban core with around 30 million :banana: :cheers:


BosWash is not a metro area. Please use the correct term.
It also has between 44million and 54million depending on if you just include the main CSA's or the main CSA's and adjoining MSA's.


----------



## Seattlelife

Sielbeck said:


> Judging by this picture, I would say that *Vancouver to Portland looks pretty good sized. Is it too far-fetched to call that a megalopolis?* BTW, I agree with Chicago-Milwaukee.


You have to drive about an hour south from Olympia, WA through rural land before you reach metro Portland and well over an hour north from Everett, WA before you reach metro Vancouver.

It's not even close to a megalopolis, but I do see how the image can make it appear that way.


----------



## Azia

*New yorlk?*



Northsider said:


> I would say the same thing about many of these named "megalopolises". Rockford and Chicago are separated by 35 miles of cornfield. Chicago to Detroit?! That's just too much.


Whats up With new york east cost corridor this metropolis must have 50-60 million people from washington to Boston


----------



## hudkina

Seattlelife said:


> You have to drive about an hour south from Olympia, WA through rural land before you reach metro Portland and well over an hour north from Everett, WA before you reach metro Vancouver.
> 
> It's not even close to a megalopolis, but I do see how the image can make it appear that way.


There are a lot of small towns and rural communities between them such as Centralia, Longview, Mt. Vernon, Bellingham, etc. While it isn't a megalopolis, the I-5 corridor is a long stretch of human development of some sort.


----------



## Blackpool88

By megalopolis do you mean just a series of towns and cities that are very close together or do they have to have some sort of integration like a minimum percentage of population commuting? in essence do you mean they form one metro or they are just pretty close?


----------



## Chrissib

I have drawn a map of megalopolises (in my opinion):










There are also some future and possible things, like in Brazil or the southern-african ones.


----------



## Chrissib

Blackpool88 said:


> By megalopolis do you mean just a series of towns and cities that are very close together or do they have to have some sort of integration like a minimum percentage of population commuting? in essence do you mean they form one metro or they are just pretty close?


Megalopolis is a series of metropolitan areas or cities very close together. They usually are on locations where the ground is very fertile to sustain a high population density.


----------



## xlchris

*Randstad/Rimcity*, the Netherlands - Amsterdam/Rotterdam/The Hague/Utrecht - *7,6 million*


>


_Port of Rotterdam (biggest of Europe) / Amsterdam Schiphol Airport / International Court of Justice The Hague_


----------



## hudkina

Blackpool88 said:


> By megalopolis do you mean just a series of towns and cities that are very close together or do they have to have some sort of integration like a minimum percentage of population commuting? in essence do you mean they form one metro or they are just pretty close?


There is no strict definition of "megalopolis", but I would say that for a megalopolis to be present, there has to be a relative human density between the major urban nodes.


----------



## Küsel

Chrissib said:


> I have drawn a map of megalopolises (in my opinion):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are also some future and possible things, like in Brazil or the southern-african ones.


Great work! I think it's quite accurate. BA-Montevideo-POA could also be a metro-urban area and mid-South Africa. Bali belongs also to Java and the Pearl River goes a bit further up and don't forget the Mumbai coast down til Trivandrum


----------



## BrickellResidence

ur missing mexico city


----------



## Northsider

brickellresidence said:


> ur missing mexico city


Which consists of Mexico City and...

Surely you don't think that area has a sprawling metropolis to the extent of the other areas mentioned?


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor

*@ Chrissib*



Chrissib said:


> I have drawn a map of megalopolises (in my opinion):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are also some future and possible things, like in Brazil or the southern-african ones.


^^ This is, indeed, a fairly accurate map.

I only have a problem with your representations for the Chinese and Indian megalopolises.

The Chinese megalopolis isn't only restricted along the eastern coastline of China. There are thousands upon thousands of small villages dotting the central plains of China like bird-droppings. I mean, these villages are fairly densely distibuted over an area larger than all of Western Europe. Some portions of which are as dense as the Randstad urban region.

There is also the Indian megalopolis. This megalopolis is even larger than the already mind-bogglingly huge Chinese megalopolis. Your map failed to include the large swathes of dense farming communities in India's central regions. Heck, almost all of India is densely populated.


----------



## deranged

Good map, Chrissib - it looks quite accurate.
Though I agree with Kusel and Brickellresidence about the Mexico City, Buenos Aires, Johannesburg and Mumbai regions.



Northsider said:


> Which consists of Mexico City and...
> 
> Surely you don't think that area has a sprawling metropolis to the extent of the other areas mentioned?


Puebla, Toluca, Cuernavaca and a few small towns.

It doesn't cover an area as large as most of the other megalopoleis, but with approx 30 million people, it has a larger population than some of those shown.


----------



## BrickellResidence

mexico city and its neighboring cities have a population of 35 million combined but it will happen by 2020


----------



## OPO.RVK

Can also be added the Iberic atlantic Coast, with a urban continual around 11 million people.


----------



## helee

man you have so wrong about countries like egypt..hole south east asia have very large skylines? ex bangkok


----------



## Chrissib

deranged said:


> Good map, Chrissib - it looks quite accurate.
> Though I agree with Kusel and Brickellresidence about the Mexico City, Buenos Aires, Johannesburg and Mumbai regions.
> 
> 
> 
> Puebla, Toluca, Cuernavaca and a few small towns.
> 
> It doesn't cover an area as large as most of the other megalopoleis, but with approx 30 million people, it has a larger population than some of those shown.


The metro area of Mexico is more an isolated one like Paris, that's why I haven't includet it on the map.


----------



## Küsel

Paris is forming a Megalopolis with London in fact - by time-distance. It is already discussed that this is the bipolar capital of Europe and there are a lot of people from both cities that visit of work in the other one quite often.


----------



## deranged

helee said:


> man you have so wrong about countries like egypt..hole south east asia have very large skylines? ex bangkok


What do you mean? Skyline size has nothing to do with whether or not an area is a megalopolis.


----------



## NorthWesternGuy

Could my city make part of SoCal area? Los Angeles-Palm Springs-Indio-Coachella-I. Valley-Mexicali, for ex.?

It would be interesting


----------



## Chrissib

NorthWesternGuy said:


> Could my city make part of SoCal area? Los Angeles-Palm Springs-Indio-Coachella-I. Valley-Mexicali, for ex.?
> 
> It would be interesting


It's for sure a candidate for the future^^.


----------



## Manila-X

Chrissib said:


> I have drawn a map of megalopolises (in my opinion):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are also some future and possible things, like in Brazil or the southern-african ones.


Manila's urban area should be there. The city is huge, one of the largest in the world.


----------



## tollfreak

^^ can the Dallas-San Antonio-Houston Triangle in Texas be considered as a megalopolis also?


----------



## hudkina

Not really. The closest you have is the Dallas-Austin-San Antonio corridor, but even that corridor has a lot of sparesely settled land between the major cities.


----------



## hudkina

BTW, the Southern Piedmont in the U.S. is another emerging megalopolis. It stretches from Raleigh to Atlanta and possibly even Birmingham. It has closer to 15 million people and is growing steadily.


----------



## Chrissib

WANCH said:


> Manila's urban area should be there. The city is huge, one of the largest in the world.


Manila is, like Paris, an isolated metro area.


----------



## Küsel

Exactly - as is Dallas-Fort Worth. To SA or Houston you drive half a day to a day through endless woods and fields and only meet some small towns. Well to San Antonio at least you can pass by Waco or Austin but inbetween is not really a lot...


----------



## aaabbbccc

the casablanca rabat region not really a megalapolis population is only 8 million people in that region but there is alot of sprawl ( alot of villages / new suburbs / older suburbs / cities etc ) this extension is about 80 miles of coastline and about 20 miles inland


----------



## amidcars

Oh my God! What a maps! I'm impressed with the megalopolis, specially New York and Los Angeles!!!


----------



## hudkina

To be fair that "Los Angeles" one isn't a very accurate representation. There is a massive mountain range between the Central Valley and the Southland with very limited development. In reality Los Angeles' megalopolis extends from Oxnard to Tijuana.

BTW, assuming that the Chicago-Pittsburgh stretch is a megalopolis, most of the development between Lake Michigan and Lake Erie runs through the southern 1/3 of Michigan, particularly along the I-94 corridor. Once you get south of South Bend and Toledo there really isn't much development.


----------



## Azia

*re..*

can chicago milwaukee be an area of 15 million inhabitans i think so when two areas unidet to one metropolis .. ??!!


----------



## pimvdh

the metropolis in europe is huge. But how can the megapolis be connected from netherlands to Italy?


----------



## dnobsemajdnob

hudkina said:


> BTW, the Southern Piedmont in the U.S. is another emerging megalopolis. It stretches from Raleigh to Atlanta and possibly even Birmingham. It has closer to 15 million people and is growing steadily.



I live in Charlotte. There are farms not far outside of the city limits, and there are vast areas of open space between Charlotte and Raleigh and between Charlotte and Atlanta. Therefore, this part of the Southeast is not a megalopolis.


----------



## hudkina

Hence my saying an "emerging". There's farms and vast areas of open space in between the major cities in the Northeast, so it's not unreasonable to assume that the Southeast is emerging as such.


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor

*@ [everyone]*

What's with all the hype with "The Blue Banana" (the Western European Megalopolis)?

The Chinese and Indian megalopolises are far more impressive, IMHO.


----------



## hudkina

Don't the Alps create a huge gap between Northern and Southern portions of the banana?


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor

*@ hudkina*

^^ Yep. I guess you're probably right on that one. All the more reason why *The Blue Banana* isn't as impressive as the Chinese and Indian megalopolises.


----------



## dnobsemajdnob

hudkina said:


> Hence my saying an "emerging". There's farms and vast areas of open space in between the major cities in the Northeast, so it's not unreasonable to assume that the Southeast is emerging as such.


There are no farms between the major cities in the Northeast.


----------



## hudkina

Are you kidding me? There's farms and rural areas all throughout the Northeast, even between Washington and Baltimore, which are by far the most interconnected cities of the Northeast Megalopolis.


----------



## dnobsemajdnob

If you drive through I-95 which cuts through the core of all major Northeaster cities, there is not a single farm along the way.


----------



## Küsel

hudkina said:


> Don't the Alps create a huge gap between Northern and Southern portions of the banana?


Drive ones through or over the Alps and you will not find one 1km that is not overbuild by hotels, restaurants, resort towns or ski areas. And their infrastructure is very urban. There is also definitions that the Flims-Laax resort west of Chur is in fact metro Zurich because most of the people who have their holiday house there or go skiing in this area that can be reached within 2 hours from the city center are actually from this city. The Alps are since centuries more a connecting area than an deviding obstacle.


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor

*@ Küsel*

^^ I see. So, there must be plenty of tunnels in those mountains (Alps) then.


----------



## limerickguy

ya europe is getting way too urbanised for me in my openion, we now have cities that actually rival the usa!

metro populations include

Berlin 5 million
London 14 million
Madrid 7 million
Rome 3.8 million
Milan 7.4 million
Moscow 17 million
Paris 14 million
Munich 6 million
Amsterdam 6.7 million
Athens 4.2 million
Barcelona 5 million
Istanbul 12.6 million
Dussledorf region 13.4 million


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor

*@ limerickguy*

Wait 'til the Chinese east coast develops into a full-fledged megalopolis this coming decade (2010-2020). It'll put the Blue Banana and the Northeastern Corridor to shame. Heck, even at current density levels, some sparser parts of the Yangtze River Delta are nearly as dense as Exurban New York.

Moreover, most of the farmers of these densely packed farms live in mini-mansion-like or mini-castle-like farmhouses in messily-arranged rows as far as the eye can see across the horizon (as aerially viewed from a plane window on a good day).

By then, you'd be thankful that Western Europe never got to those levels of vast density.


----------



## hudkina

You have to remember that China and India combined have nearly half the world's population! Of course they're going to have the largest concentrations of human habitation. There are probably half a dozen areas in India that rival the Northeastern U.S. in population.

For example, the Indian state of Kerala has over 32 million people in just 15,000 sq. mi. That's about as many people as those living between Wilmington, DE and Springfield, MA (which includes Philadelphia, New York, and Hartford.) It's also about the same size as that stretch of the Northeast.

The difference though is that the largest "city" in Kerala only has about 1 million people.


----------



## SASH

limerickguy said:


> ya europe is getting way too urbanised for me in my openion, we now have cities that actually rival the usa!
> 
> metro populations include
> 
> Berlin 5 million
> London 14 million
> Madrid 7 million
> Rome 3.8 million
> Milan 7.4 million
> Moscow 17 million
> Paris 14 million
> Munich 6 million
> Amsterdam 6.7 million
> Athens 4.2 million
> Barcelona 5 million
> Istanbul 12.6 million
> Dussledorf region 13.4 million


Amsterdam 6.7 MILLION? :?


----------



## luci203

Chrissib said:


> I have drawn a map of megalopolises (in my opinion):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are also some future and possible things, like in Brazil or the southern-african ones.





pimvdh said:


> the metropolis in europe is huge. But how can the megapolis be connected from netherlands to Italy?


That area have a small problem. :shifty:

The "euro-metro" in the picture cover the entire country of Swissland. :lol:

wich is a country wits average size cities, lots of small towns, lakes, mountains.

Europe will have a few medium (10-20 million people) metropolitan areas in the future:

now:
- Paris area
- London area
- Moscow area
- Istambul area (even if half of the city is in Asia)

in the near future:
- Milano -Torino area (very dense area, it might unite even in the next decade)
- Ruhr area in Germany (Duisborg,Essen,Dortmund) and in the future Dusseldorf and Koln.



limerickguy said:


> ya europe is getting way too urbanised for me in my openion, we now have cities that actually rival the usa!
> 
> metro populations include
> 
> Berlin 5 million
> London 14 million
> Madrid 7 million
> Rome 3.8 million
> Milan 7.4 million
> Moscow 17 million
> Paris 14 million
> Munich 6 million
> Amsterdam 6.7 million
> Athens 4.2 million
> Barcelona 5 million
> Istanbul 12.6 million
> Dussledorf region 13.4 million





SASH SCF said:


> Amsterdam 6.7 MILLION? :?


Somme of them are wrong...

Berlin 5 million
London 14 million
Madrid 7 million
*Rome 2.7 million*
*Milan 3 million*
*Moscow 14 million*
*Paris 12 million*
Munich 6 million
*Amsterdam 2.1 million*
*Athens 3.6* million
*Barcelona 4 million*
Istanbul 12.6 million
*Dussledorf region ???* (Ruhr-Dusseldorf 7.2 - with Koln and other cities might reach 14 millions, but the area is not dense enough yet)

*TOP 20 Metro Areas:*


> 1. *Tokyo–Yokohama* - Japan - 34,670,000
> 2. *Jakarta * - Indonesia - 23,345,000
> 3. *New York City* - United States- 21,295,000
> 4. *Mumbai(Bombay)* - India 20,400,000
> 5. *Manila* - Philippines 20,075,000
> 6. *Delhi* - India 19,830,000 1,425
> 8. *São Paulo* - Brazil 19,505,000
> 9. *Mexico City* - Mexico 18,585,000
> 10. *Osaka–Kobe–Kyoto* - Japan 17,310,000
> 11. *Cairo* - Egypt 17,035,000
> 12. *Kolkata(Calcutta)* - India 15,250,000
> 13. *Los Angeles* - United States 14,940,000
> 14. *Shanghai* - China 14,655,000
> 15. *Shenzhen* - China 14,230,000
> 16. *Moscow* - Russia 13,670,000
> 17. *Buenos Aires *- Argentina 12,925,000
> 18. *Beijing* - China - 12,780,000
> 19. *Guangzhou(Canton)–Foshan* - China 11,850,000
> 20. *Rio de Janeiro* - Brazil 11,400,000


:cheers:


----------



## Küsel

It doesn't cover the whole of Switzerland. The Swiss midlands have some 6-7mio pop on ca. 12'000km2 and is one metro - similar to Randstadt (which here falsly is named Amsterdam). Düsseldorf is btw Rhein-Ruhr and Munich doesn't have 6 mio, only if you count more than half of Bavaria to it. It's a quite isolated city in fact. Densest areas apart from megacities as London, Istanbul, Paris and Moscow in Europe are Belgium-Netherlands-Rhein-Ruhr, Lombaria, North England and Swiss Midlands with continuation to Lyon. The Blue Banana is NOT a metro region, but an economical boom area as defined in the 70s (I think). Same goes for the Sun Belt from Valencia to Genova.


----------



## Chrissib

The Cebuano Exultor said:


> Wait 'til the Chinese east coast develops into a full-fledged megalopolis this coming decade (2010-2020). It'll put the Blue Banana and the Northeastern Corridor to shame. Heck, even at current density levels, some parts of the Yangtze River Delta are nearly as dense as Exurban New York.
> 
> Moreover, most of the farmers of these densely packed farms live in mini-mansion-like or mini-castle-like farmhouses in messily-arranged rows as far as the eye can see across the horizon (as aerially viewed from a plane window on a good day).
> 
> By then, you'd be thankful that Western Europe never got to those levels of vast density.


Yes it will be amazing.:cheers:

I am already wondering how high the urban density of China will be when it's a developed country. I don't think that the condos now sharing the vast majority of the buildings in Chinese cities will remain. The residential buildings will be more individual in the future. Maybe the urban density will converge to a mid-to-high level. 10,000/km² is plausible, like in Spain and Japan. Although the population density of coastal china is comparable to the Randstad Holland region, i don't think that the density will fall to 5000/km² as in the Randstad today. China has not a 'detached-house-culture' like the netherlands or Britain or the USA but more an apartement-culture like Spain.


----------



## Chrissib

Küsel said:


> It doesn't cover the whole of Switzerland. The Swiss midlands have some 6-7mio pop on ca. 12'000km2 and is one metro - similar to Randstadt (which here falsly is named Amsterdam). Düsseldorf is btw Rhein-Ruhr and Munich doesn't have 6 mio, only if you count more than half of Bavaria to it. It's a quite isolated city in fact. Densest areas apart from megacities as London, Istanbul, Paris and Moscow in Europe are Belgium-Netherlands-Rhein-Ruhr, Lombaria, North England and Swiss Midlands with continuation to Lyon. The Blue Banana is NOT a metro region, but an economical boom area as defined in the 70s (I think). Same goes for the Sun Belt from Valencia to Genova.


Blue Banana is (in my opinion) a Megalopolis like BosWash. It has a comparable density. Megalopoli are the biggest settlement structure of humanity. They have developed over the course of centuries and millennia as you have to have fertile grounds for a megalopolis.


----------



## BrickellResidence

luci203 said:


> That area have a small problem. :shifty:
> 
> The "euro-metro" in the picture cover the entire country of Swissland. :lol:
> 
> wich is a country wits average size cities, lots of small towns, lakes, mountains.
> 
> Europe will have a few medium (10-20 million people) metropolitan areas in the future:
> 
> now:
> - Paris area
> - London area
> - Moscow area
> - Istambul area (even if half of the city is in Asia)
> 
> in the near future:
> - Milano -Torino area (very dense area, it might unite even in the next decade)
> - Ruhr area in Germany (Duisborg,Essen,Dortmund) and in the future Dusseldorf and Koln.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somme of them are wrong...
> 
> Berlin 5 million
> London 14 million
> Madrid 7 million
> *Rome 2.7 million*
> *Milan 3 million*
> *Moscow 14 million*
> *Paris 12 million*
> Munich 6 million
> *Amsterdam 2.1 million*
> *Athens 3.6* million
> *Barcelona 4 million*
> Istanbul 12.6 million
> *Dussledorf region ???* (Ruhr-Dusseldorf 7.2 - with Koln and other cities might reach 14 millions, but the area is not dense enough yet)
> 
> *TOP 20 Metro Areas:*
> 
> 
> :cheers:



MEXICO CITY DOESN´T HAVE 18 MILLION IT HAS 28 MILLION IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA


----------



## Northsider

brickellresidence said:


> MEXICO CITY DOESN´T HAVE 18 MILLION IT HAS 28 MILLION IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA


IS YOUR CAPS LOCK BROKEN?! 

28 million is certainly a generous estimate. i would say that is the upper limit on estimates, though 18-22 million would be a better estimate for the metro area.


----------



## BrickellResidence

haha the 28 million is the 2009 estimate 22 million is 2000 estimate


----------



## Chrissib

If you add up the Populations of Distrito federal and Mexico State you'll have a rough and generous estimate of the population:



Code:


Distrito Federal     8,720,916
Mexico State        14,007,495
------------------------------
total               22,728,411

Data is from 2005 citypopulation.de


----------



## Northsider

brickellresidence said:


> haha the 28 million is the 2009 estimate 22 million is 2000 estimate


Source then. Don't just post random numbers...


----------



## BrickellResidence

TODAY

distrito fedral 9,000,000 (est)
mexico state 18,000,000 (est)


----------



## Northsider

brickellresidence said:


> TODAY
> 
> distrito fedral 9,000,000 (est)
> mexico state 18,000,000 (est)


Source? Link? Article? Again, _generous_ estimates are as high as 28 million...I seriously doubt the actual numbers are anywhere near that


----------



## the spliff fairy

The Cebuano Exultor said:


> Wait 'til the Chinese east coast develops into a full-fledged megalopolis this coming decade (2010-2020). It'll put the Blue Banana and the Northeastern Corridor to shame. Heck, even at current density levels, some parts of the Yangtze River Delta are nearly as dense as Exurban New York.
> 
> Moreover, most of the farmers of these densely packed farms live in mini-mansion-like or mini-castle-like farmhouses in messily-arranged rows as far as the eye can see across the horizon (as aerially viewed from a plane window on a good day).
> .


yep, this is 'rural' China outside the cities, farmer's houses and apartments:

From the air you can start to see the scale of it, for 150 km


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor

*@ the spliff fairy*

^^ Yeah! That's what I was talking about! :happy: 

Take that, *The Blue Banana*!

BTW, have you tried checking this area out via GoogleEarth or GoogleMaps? This sorta density extends all the way to Beijing in the north, Harbin in the northeast, Ningbo in the south, and Zhengzhou in the west.

Only Northern India has a larger concentration of human settlements. :yes:


----------



## Manila-X

Jakarta no.2?


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor

*@ Chrissib*

^^ If we are talking about population density and absolute population numbers, then the Ganges River Valley is already the world's largest.

However, I doubt that any other population center can have the level of infrastructural immensity of the Chinese Megalopolis. And, its current pace of transportation infrastructure development and urban built-up construction, strongly supports this premise.


----------



## Chrissib

Yes, but China needs to develop a unitary road system like the other nations, with properly numbered highways. Until now, expressways are built but are not numbered so one cannot see how big the network really is.


----------



## lawine

SASH SCF said:


> Amsterdam 6.7 MILLION? :?


That's probably referring to the Randstad region, which includes the hague, rotterdam, and utrecht. The historically accepted randstad has about 7 million people in it, though a more realistic version of it, which includes other cities that are definitely connected to it would yield around 10 million.


----------



## null

Chrissib said:


> Yes, but China needs to develop a unitary road system like the other nations, with properly numbered highways. Until now, expressways are built but are not numbered so one cannot see how big the network really is.


Yes Chrissib, we have. Even for the Provincial Expressways, extensively.
Check the exit lists site for China:

http://www.motorways-exitlists.com/asia/chn/china.htm


----------



## city_thing

The Cebuano Exultor said:


> ^^ If we are talking about population density and absolute population numbers, then the Ganges River Valley is already the world's largest.
> 
> *However, I doubt that any other population center can have the level of infrastructural immensity of the Chinese Megalopolis. And, its current pace of transportation infrastructure development and urban built-up construction, strongly supports this premise.*


Why?

China still has a long way to go before its cities catch up with other major urban centres. 

And what makes you think that no other cities will have just as much infrastructure? I don't mean to sound offensive, but that's a very naive comment.


----------



## Chrissib

city_thing said:


> Why?
> 
> China still has a long way to go before its cities catch up with other major urban centres.
> 
> And what makes you think that no other cities will have just as much infrastructure? I don't mean to sound offensive, but that's a very naive comment.


No other megalopolis with half a billion inhabitants exist than Chinese East Coast and the Ganges River Delta. Even if you say it's offensive, but from the population numbers it's right.

The Ganges river valley has 680 million inhabitants, coastal China has 600 million. Even the third biggest megalopolis, the Blue Banana has only a fourth of the population numbers. The difference is that Ganges River isn't the economic powerhouse of india and therefore has not the infrastructual level that chinese east coast has. Indias development is more concentrated in the south.


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor

*@ city_thing*



> The Ganges river valley has 680 million inhabitants, coastal China has 600 million. Even the third biggest megalopolis, the Blue Banana has only a fourth of the population numbers. The difference is that Ganges River isn't the economic powerhouse of india and therefore has not the infrastructual level that chinese east coast has. Indias development is more concentrated in the south.


^^ That's precisely my point. :yes: :cheers2:

I think the reason why you misunderstood my statement is my wrong use of an adverb. I should have used "would" instead of "can" when I stated:


> "...*can* have the level of infrastructural immensity....


To clarify, what I meant was that the Chinese Megalopolis would eventually have the _*largest dense concentration of man-made infrastructure in the world*_, in 20 to 30 years time (when the region reaches a level of wide-spread "developed" status). Today, that distinction still, obviously, belongs to "The Blue Banana."


----------



## whitefordj

this thread is absurd. interestingly, funny, but absurd.


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor

*@ whitefordj*

^^ Do you mean crazily awesome*ly* 'absurd' or disgustingly stupid 'absurd'?


----------



## whitefordj

i am leaning toward stupidly, awesome 'absurd'.


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor

*@ whitefordj*



> i am leaning toward stupidly


^^ Why so?

BTW, I edited my post.


----------



## atmBrasil

Sao Paulo - Campinas, The South American megalopolis


----------



## Küsel

This Megalopolis is bigger, because it's the Sao Paulo-Rio belt that includes not only Campinas but also Santos and the valley to Rio


----------



## Saigoneseguy

Küsel said:


> You may be right, true
> 
> Nanjing, Wuhan, Xian I would also include as famous and the old name Kanton may be familiar as well. But today I found some cities that are bigger than Berlin or Madrid and even for me sounded totally unfamiliar. Zooming into them they look anyway all the same as endless circles of commieblocks. Want to see some real pics of them once


Tick the panoramio option in GE and you'll see the pics.


----------



## SutroTower

*Heres a pic of the Valle de México(Valley of Mexico) metro zone..*



*some aereal pics..*



























crowded east and north suburbs.
















[/QUOTE]


----------



## the spliff fairy

Im riding the wave of that last pic :cheers:


----------



## Brazil_Gold Coast

Pretty amazing photos there!!


----------



## anakngpasig

the last photo
looks unbelievable!


----------



## Mr.Burn

No No you have it all worng guys, those are just the land waves caused whenever there is a quake.


----------



## amar11372

The-E-Vid said:


>


Damn! Awesome shot.


----------



## Manila-X

hudkina said:


> Most cities in the world are mostly low-rise. The only one that you could argue is mosty "high-rise" in nature is Hong Kong.


Low to mid-rise. HK is mostly high-rise but its *not* considered a megalopolis. Unless you include *The Pearl River Delta* but traveling from HK to the other parts of the region is like traveling from San Diego to Tijuana. Or from Buffalo to Toronto. 

On the other hand, Buffalo can be part of Toronto's urban area but its not part of Canada.


----------



## kids

hudkina said:


> L.A. has 1 million people living within the 50 sq. mi. core. (That's more than even San Francisco.) You mean to tell me Santa Monica, Long Beach, West Hollywood, etc. aren't "city" enough for you?


just under a million. that's exactly what i was looking at, what a guess!

and no. not the same city anyway.


----------



## Manila-X

kids said:


> just under a million. that's exactly what i was looking at, what a guess!
> 
> and no. not the same city anyway.


San Fernando Valley isn't included


----------



## foadi

kids said:


> just under a million. that's exactly what i was looking at, what a guess!
> 
> and no. not the same city anyway.


that level density can be extended even further if you want, for example

http://cityplanning.lacity.org/dru/HomeLocl.cfm

take the area planning commission

central: 728,391, 47.92 sq mi, 15,199 ppsm
south: 732,509, 44.74 sq mi, 16,373 ppsm
east: 432,814, 38.14 sq mi, 11,348 ppsm
minus census tracts 187000-189799 (los feliz/hollywood hills/griffith park):
56,776, 16.76 sq mi, 3,388 ppsm
total: 1,836,938, 114.04 sq mi (295 km2), 16,107 ppsm (6226/km2)

and you can extend even further if you want in pretty much any direction. la city much bigger than 1 million dude


----------



## Xusein

WANCH said:


> On the other hand, Buffalo can be part of Toronto's urban area but its not part of Canada.


I don't believe it is. Buffalo is its own urban area. 

There's a fair amount of rural areas when driving on the QEW before Hamilton (the first big city on the way), plus the whole thing of an international border limits lots of activity. Starting today, you need a passport to go to Canada. Hell, even the Canadian border town, Fort Erie, can't be seen as part of the same metro because commuting is so low and it's literally on it's own. 

I go to school in Buffalo and will be back in the fall. Toronto is seen as a cultural outlet, as it is a world city, a place to spend the day, to the residents there since it absolutely blows Buffalo out of the water in all categories. Not really much different than what people here in Hartford think of NYC. Not much see Buffalo as part of the part of the Greater Toronto Area. I would actually say that the connections between Buffalo and Toronto are weakening, not strengthening.


----------



## I-275westcoastfl

I think in time Florida will become it's own megalopolis, not really in a good way though. Through sprawl I think soon enough Tampa-St. Petersburg will connect with Orlando which will eventually connect with the east coast. Then Miami's metro will grow up the east coast while Jacksonville will grow south along the east coast. It will be an interesting thing to see.


----------



## hudkina

It's practically already there. You can drive along the Florida coast from Miami to Jacksonville with only a few small gaps, mostly in the stretch from Titusville to Jacksonville. You can also drive from Naples to the Deltona area with only a few minor gaps. Those two areas are then only separated by an 11 mile gap between Deltona and Daytona Beach.


----------



## foadi

it's entirely possible that sprawl will slow down or stop and florida cities will start to densify. i wouldn't just assume taht the endless sprawl will continue.


----------



## hudkina

I agree that Florida might see a prolonged "bust" period where few new developments are built on the fringe of the cities, but for the most part, that area is already interconnected. Take a drive along the coast from Homestead to Titusville, and you honestly won't pass too many undeveloped areas. The 100-mile strip between Naples and Bradenton has over 1.5 million people hugging the coastline, with only a few minor gaps.


----------



## foadi

it's definitely not all developed along the i-95, but along the coast maybe ya.


----------



## isakres

*Night Satellite pics*



WANCH said:


> Except one, The *Taiheiyo Belt*



I think its wrong to estimate density / population/urbanized areas using this night satellite images....The netherlands seems so bright!!!..but the entire country has less than 20million. In the other hand..try to find North Korea in those images!!!....(the Country has more population than the Netherlands).It seems like South Korea is just an Island and it has no land connection with mainland China!!.........Developed Countries are that bright because of its infraestructure.....but dont underestimate those shadows in the maps..maybe there are some little monsters in the emerging world.

And I agree, Floridas Atlantic Coast is pretty connected along the coast!!..so maybe we may have the SE Megalopolis in the future.:banana:


----------



## I-275westcoastfl

hudkina said:


> It's practically already there. You can drive along the Florida coast from Miami to Jacksonville with only a few small gaps, mostly in the stretch from Titusville to Jacksonville. You can also drive from Naples to the Deltona area with only a few minor gaps. Those two areas are then only separated by an 11 mile gap between Deltona and Daytona Beach.


Exactly it's those gaps that make them not connected.



foadi said:


> it's entirely possible that sprawl will slow down or stop and florida cities will start to densify. i wouldn't just assume taht the endless sprawl will continue.


No we have a lot of people who want to live in a rural setting and people who retire and want to leave the city. Florida is pretty bad with sprawl I can see connections happening perhaps even in the next boom.




isakres said:


> And I agree, Floridas Atlantic Coast is pretty connected along the coast!!..so maybe we may have the SE Megalopolis in the future.:banana:


Maybe someday but I think the gulf coast will be first.


----------



## Manila-X

isakres said:


> I think its wrong to estimate density / population/urbanized areas using this night satellite images....The netherlands seems so bright!!!..but the entire country has less than 20million. In the other hand..try to find North Korea in those images!!!....(the Country has more population than the Netherlands).It seems like South Korea is just an Island and it has no land connection with mainland China!!.........Developed Countries are that bright because of its infraestructure.....but dont underestimate those shadows in the maps..maybe there are some little monsters in the emerging world.
> 
> And I agree, Floridas Atlantic Coast is pretty connected along the coast!!..so maybe we may have the SE Megalopolis in the future.:banana:


I wouldn't be surprised with DPRK. Its an *authoritarian* hermit country. Pyongyang would still be the brightest city in this country.


----------



## kids

foadi said:


> that level density can be extended even further if you want, for example
> 
> http://cityplanning.lacity.org/dru/HomeLocl.cfm
> 
> take the area planning commission
> 
> central: 728,391, 47.92 sq mi, 15,199 ppsm
> south: 732,509, 44.74 sq mi, 16,373 ppsm
> east: 432,814, 38.14 sq mi, 11,348 ppsm
> minus census tracts 187000-189799 (los feliz/hollywood hills/griffith park):
> 56,776, 16.76 sq mi, 3,388 ppsm
> total: 1,836,938, 114.04 sq mi (295 km2), 16,107 ppsm (6226/km2)
> 
> and you can extend even further if you want in pretty much any direction. la city much bigger than 1 million dude


Well I didn't really believe it myself. I'm just making a point. It's more like 1 million than 17.


----------



## xXFallenXx

kids said:


> Well I didn't really believe it myself. I'm just making a point. It's more like 1 million than 17.


have you ever been to L.A.?


----------



## Northsider

xXFallenXx said:


> have you ever been to L.A.?


Does he have to? 1st hand evidence is not the only evidence available.


----------



## hudkina

Well using his standard, Chicago is a city of maybe 750,000... Is that true?


----------



## Northsider

hudkina said:


> Well using his standard, Chicago is a city of maybe 750,000... Is that true?


Of it's densest neighborhoods, perhaps. Chicago's population density drops off significantly away from the Lakefront, this is no secret. I would argue that west of the River, Chicago is indeed very suburban in nature as well. The Northwest, Far South, and Southwest neighborhoods are all very low density.

I've heard numerous people say that Chicago in its periphery is not as "city like" as they had thought before hand. In this respect, yes it's absolutely true that "Chicago is a city of 750,000".

Anyways, it's just a pet peeve of mine on these forums. The whole "have you even been to x city before?!" statement is just annoying beyond belief...as if we cannot have any sort of opinion without having to traverse every street in a city....


----------



## xXFallenXx

Northsider said:


> Does he have to? 1st hand evidence is not the only evidence available.


Well when he makes clams that L.A. is only a city of 1,000,000 it seems like it would be helpful.


----------



## Northsider

xXFallenXx said:


> Well when he makes clams that L.A. is only a city of 1,000,000 it seems like it would be helpful.


From what I gathered, he was making a point that LA is so suburban in nature it seems like a city of only 1 million, rather than 3, because extend the boundaries of a city far enough and you can have any population you want. The urban character of the city really only encompasses about 1 million people.


----------



## kids

xXFallenXx said:


> have you ever been to L.A.?


Have you ever been to a European city?


----------



## kids

hudkina said:


> Well using his standard, Chicago is a city of maybe 750,000... Is that true?


Nah using my standards Chicago is significantly larger than LA. Northsider's got it right.


----------



## hudkina

Have you ever been to Europe? European cities are far more suburban than a lot of people think, especially in places like the U.K., Ireland, Germany, Scandanavia, etc. Trust me the 8 million people in London don't live in the "city".


----------



## oliver999

kids said:


> I wouldn't even consider most of LA "city" - it's just stuff/thing/blob. the city, i would say, has a population max 1 million.


maybe you mean city core population?


----------



## oliver999

i am really confused ,metro eara, urban eara ,municipal eara,city core eara------


----------



## oliver999

city center urban enlaredurban greaturban 
london 321km2 /234万 1580km2 / 738万 11427km2 /1253万 27224km2 /3650万
paris 105km2 /215万 2125km2 / 832万 12072km2 /1065万 145000km2 /4600万
newyork 780km2 /738万 10202km2 /1606万 33483km2 /1934万 140000km2 /6500万
tokyo 598km2 /816万 2162km2 /1186万 13508km2 /3156万 36834km2 /3916万

shanghai 620km2/ 915万 4760km2 /1575万 16519km2 /2546万 98591km2 /7000万
seoul 605Km2/1091万 12072km2/ 2019万 14500km2/ 4600万
mumbai 438km2/1158万 1810万


----------



## Chrissib

oliver999 said:


> city center urban enlaredurban greaturban
> london 321km2 /234万 1580km2 / 738万 11427km2 /1253万 27224km2 /3650万
> paris 105km2 /215万 2125km2 / 832万 12072km2 /1065万 145000km2 /4600万
> newyork 780km2 /738万 10202km2 /1606万 33483km2 /1934万 140000km2 /6500万
> tokyo 598km2 /816万 2162km2 /1186万 13508km2 /3156万 36834km2 /3916万
> 
> shanghai 620km2/ 915万 4760km2 /1575万 16519km2 /2546万 98591km2 /7000万
> seoul 605Km2/1091万 12072km2/ 2019万 14500km2/ 4600万
> mumbai 438km2/1158万 1810万


great urban are ridiculous. London 36.5 million people and Paris 46 million??? never ever! Also the city center figure irritates me. For London, it's only a part of London, but the whole Paris or New York.:nuts:


----------



## Chrissib

hudkina said:


> Have you ever been to Europe? European cities are far more suburban than a lot of people think, especially in places like the U.K., Ireland, Germany, Scandanavia, etc. Trust me the 8 million people in London don't live in the "city".


I think maybe 500,000 to 1 million live in real urban environments. The other 6.5-7 million are in any form of a single-family-home.


----------



## kids

Not true at all. You'd be surprised by how dense London is. Those might be houses you're looking at on google earth but if they're anywhere near the centre of the city they'll be split into flats (apartments).


----------



## kids

2,740,900 in central London:


----------



## Chrissib

kids said:


> 2,740,900 in central London:


Yes I haven't understand why he compared Inner London with whole New York City.


----------



## [email protected]

Chrissib said:


> Yes I haven't understand why he compared Inner London with whole New York City.


Can't you feel the hectic urbanity of Staten Island ?


----------



## Northsider

Chrissib said:


> 2,740,900 in central London:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I haven't understand why he compared Inner London with whole New York City.
Click to expand...

Where in this post does he even mention NYC?


----------



## Chrissib

Northsider said:


> Where in this post does he even mention NYC?


I meant oliver999.


----------



## foadi

Chrissib said:


> I meant oliver999.


i didn't understand his list at all. however, inner london doesn't even have a population density of 10,000/km2, whereas new york city does (even when you include staten island).


----------



## bigbossman

^^ yes it does, 8 of the 12 boroughs in inner london do, and trhe mean figure i got is 10.107km2, that includes greenwich which is only in "inner" london for historical reasons, as there are denser boroughs in "outer" london.

and i'd wager inner london and london full stop has far more green space than new york. Some boroughs are over 50% parkland...

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



Chrissib said:


> I think maybe 500,000 to 1 million live in real urban environments. The other 6.5-7 million are in any form of a single-family-home.


have you ever been to london? Pushing 40-50% of the popualtion live in flats. Not family homes...


----------



## foadi

bigbossman said:


> ^^ yes it does


the red area in the map he posted does not. there are districts with higher population density, but im talking about inner london not individual districts.


----------



## hudkina

Is a "flat" the same thing as a rowhouse? Because the majority of London's neighborhoods outside of the "city core" are attached and semi-detached single-family homes and rowhouses. Ultimately that style of development isn't that different from dense single family homes that you'll find in the neighborhoods surrounding Los Angeles' "city core".


----------



## bayviews

Xusein said:


> I don't believe it is. Buffalo is its own urban area.
> 
> There's a fair amount of rural areas when driving on the QEW before Hamilton (the first big city on the way), plus the whole thing of an international border limits lots of activity. Starting today, you need a passport to go to Canada. Hell, even the Canadian border town, Fort Erie, can't be seen as part of the same metro because commuting is so low and it's literally on it's own.
> 
> I go to school in Buffalo and will be back in the fall. Toronto is seen as a cultural outlet, as it is a world city, a place to spend the day, to the residents there since it absolutely blows Buffalo out of the water in all categories. Not really much different than what people here in Hartford think of NYC. Not much see Buffalo as part of the part of the Greater Toronto Area. I would actually say that the connections between Buffalo and Toronto are weakening, not strengthening.


Just shows how metropolitan pecking orders can change. Before WW II, lore has it that Torontonians used to drive down to Buffalo when they wanted a taste of cosmopolitan cusine & culture. Both cities were about the same size & Buffalo offered more in the way of ethnic diversity. 

Richard Florida has coined a new bi-national agglomeration that includes both cities as well as Hamilton, Rochester, Ottawa & Montreal. But especially now that that the northern border has been tightened up, its a bit doubtful that the economic & demographic connections will really expand. 

The suburbs between Toronto & Hamilton have been among the fastest-growing parts of Canada. Missasaugua has grown to a significantly bigger population than Buffalo. On the other hand, most of the Niagara Peninsula places between Hamilton & Buffalo have been among the slowest growing parts of Canada for decades. 

While certainly in better shape than its American counterpart, 
even Niagara Falls, Canada, nonwithstanding all the new hotel towers, hasn't really grown much populationwise.


----------



## Xusein

Yes, it's kind of ironic.

I think it has to do with the fact that Toronto was never as dependent on manufacturing, unlike Buffalo (or Hamilton, the steel mills seen when driving on the QEW is incredible), and it has the fortunate aspect of being one of the "warmer" cities in it's nation. At this point, the gulf is too wide and I don't think it does much good to compare it to Toronto. Buffalo is better off comparing itself to Hamilton... to be honest, a lot of the nearby smaller cities on the Canadian side (Hamilton, St. Catherines, Oshawa, Kitchener, Brantford) from what I have seen have that gritty Rust-belt feeling that is in Buffalo...

The only positive that Buffalo has against Toronto is that housing prices are much lower (although I think property taxes are higher).

As for Niagara Falls, Ontario: Although it is in better shape than it's counterpart for sure, and it has nicer attractions too, but outside the tourist regions, it's a really ugly and dying city itself. There's literally nobody in their downtown.


----------



## Isek

:lol:


> 83 Munich Germany 50
> 40 Milan Italy 115


:lol:

This shows evidence that the ranking is BS.


----------



## the spliff fairy

the spliff fairy said:


> yep, this is 'rural' China outside the cities, farmer's houses and apartments:
> 
> From the air you can start to see the scale of it, for 150 km



found some more pics, tanx to Gerson Ibias' flight from Shanghai:


dense lines of development:


----------



## the spliff fairy

Also check this out, thanx to Staff, its SCARY:

Go here, then slowly zoom out:


http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&t=h&ll=37.604359,116.010459&spn=0.003374,0.005402&z=18






Enjoy


----------



## dnobsemajdnob

WANCH said:


> Have you been in the *historical core* area of Downtown LA plus Olivera St?


Yes. LA and Sao Paulo are two mega-cities that exploded in growth after WWII. Thus, while SP, a 500 year old city with some old architecture, still feels like a post-War sprawling city. LA does too.


----------



## Küsel

Sampa has a much more historical feel than LA, sorry. And the CBD is a little bit bigger  There are some comparable facts indeed apart from the size but not in historical architecture


----------



## null

the spliff fairy said:


> found some more pics, tanx to Gerson Ibias' flight from Shanghai:
> 
> dense lines of development:


Hangzhou metro (2009):


----------



## dnobsemajdnob

oliver999 said:


> ^^
> Richest cities and urban areas in 2005
> Rank City/Urban area Country GDP in US$bn
> 1 Tokyo Japan 1191
> 2 New York USA 1133
> 3 Los Angeles USA 639
> 4 Chicago USA 460
> 5 Paris France 460
> 6 London UK 452
> 7 Osaka/Kobe Japan 341
> 8 Mexico City Mexico 315
> 9 Philadelphia USA 312
> 10 Washington DC USA 299


This list is American propaganda. It's typical US: Ooh! We're the biggest! We're the best!

You mean to tell me that Chicago and LA have a greater economy than London? London is a much bigger city than either. London has about 20m people in the same size area that LA has 16 million and Chicago has 9 m. Also, London is the financial capital of the world. Not to mention, London and Paris are both like 4,000 years old, and Chicago is only about 150 years old, and LA wasn't even much of a city until after WWII. How can these new cities compete with cities that existed for 4,000 years?

Also, how could NY have triple the economy as London? The two cities have about the same population, and, if anything, London is even bigger. London has more billionnaires than any city in the world other than Moscow, and yet its economy is one-third New York's? That's an American lie! This list is as truthful as Dick Cheney and George Bush.


----------



## Cobucci

dnobsemajdnob said:


> This list is American propaganda. It's typical US: Ooh! We're the biggest! We're the best!
> 
> You mean to tell me that Chicago and LA have a greater economy than London? London is a much bigger city than either. London has about 20m people in the same size area that LA has 16 million and Chicago has 9 m. Also, London is the financial capital of the world. Not to mention, London and Paris are both like 4,000 years old, and Chicago is only about 150 years old, and LA wasn't even much of a city until after WWII. How can these new cities compete with cities that existed for 4,000 years?
> 
> Also, how could NY have triple the economy as London? The two cities have about the same population, and, if anything, London is even bigger. London has more billionnaires than any city in the world other than Moscow, and yet its economy is one-third New York's? That's an American lie! This list is as truthful as Dick Cheney and George Bush.


Your arguments don't make any sense.

Damascus has more than 4,000 years too. Is it richer than LA or Chicago? What about Cairo and Timbuktu?

Mumbai has a lot of billionaires too.

I have my doubts about the trustworthiness of this ranking, but your arguments are very weak.


----------



## Northsider

dnobsemajdnob said:


> This list is American propaganda. It's typical US: Ooh! We're the biggest! We're the best!
> 
> You mean to tell me that Chicago and LA have a greater economy than London? London is a much bigger city than either. London has about 20m people in the same size area that LA has 16 million and Chicago has 9 m. Also, London is the financial capital of the world. Not to mention, London and Paris are both like 4,000 years old, and Chicago is only about 150 years old, and LA wasn't even much of a city until after WWII. How can these new cities compete with cities that existed for 4,000 years?
> 
> Also, how could NY have triple the economy as London? The two cities have about the same population, and, if anything, London is even bigger. London has more billionnaires than any city in the world other than Moscow, and yet its economy is one-third New York's? That's an American lie! This list is as truthful as Dick Cheney and George Bush.


Get some facts please. You complain that Americans only decide things by size, saying that "we are bigger and better", yet your argument revolves around London being "bigger and better". And define "bigger city". Because London is bigger in _area_ than Chicago (almost 400 sq miles larger!!!!!), of course it will have more people. Chicago still has a higher density.

Anyways, please read. The first link is from a UK article, surely they can't be US-biased as well?!
http://www.computing.co.uk/accountancyage/news/2184877/london-ranked-world-six-largest=
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...of_top_100_cities_in_the_world_by_GDP_in_2005


----------



## Shezan

luci203 said:


> That area have a small problem. :shifty:
> 
> The "euro-metro" in the picture cover the entire country of Swissland. :lol:
> 
> wich is a country wits average size cities, lots of small towns, lakes, mountains.
> 
> Europe will have a few medium (10-20 million people) metropolitan areas in the future:
> 
> now:
> - Paris area
> - London area
> - Moscow area
> - Istambul area (even if half of the city is in Asia)
> 
> in the near future:
> - Milano -Torino area (very dense area, it might unite even in the next decade)
> - Ruhr area in Germany (Duisborg,Essen,Dortmund) and in the future Dusseldorf and Koln.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somme of them are wrong...
> 
> Berlin 5 million
> London 14 million
> Madrid 7 million
> *Rome 2.7 million*
> *Milan 3 million*
> *Moscow 14 million*
> *Paris 12 million*
> Munich 6 million
> *Amsterdam 2.1 million*
> *Athens 3.6* million
> *Barcelona 4 million*
> Istanbul 12.6 million
> *Dussledorf region ???* (Ruhr-Dusseldorf 7.2 - with Koln and other cities might reach 14 millions, but the area is not dense enough yet)
> 
> *TOP 20 Metro Areas:*
> 
> 
> :cheers:


Rome and Milan are surely wrong, they' re bigger.

and, in the TOP 20 Metro Areas, where's Seoul? 

:cheers:


----------



## dnobsemajdnob

Anderson Geimz said:


> Hudkina is wrong. Europe generally doesn't know "US style suburbia". Of course you can't blame him , because he never even has stepped foot on this continent.


The overwhelming majority of Americans never travel outside of their country. Maybe they're afraid to see that Europe is better. It would shatter their myth that the US is the biggest and best.


----------



## Xusein

^^I don't see what that has to do with anything in the subject. 

@the spliff fairy: great pics of 'rural' China.


----------



## dnobsemajdnob

That list was so false and biased in favor of the US.

I had actually said a good thing about LA and then someone produced this list claiming that LA and even Chicago have bigger economies than London and Paris. How can that be?


----------



## foadi

dnobsemajdnob said:


> This list is American propaganda. It's typical US: Ooh! We're the biggest! We're the best!
> 
> You mean to tell me that Chicago and LA have a greater economy than London? London is a much bigger city than either. London has about 20m people in the same size area that LA has 16 million and Chicago has 9 m. Also, London is the financial capital of the world. Not to mention, London and Paris are both like 4,000 years old, and Chicago is only about 150 years old, and LA wasn't even much of a city until after WWII. How can these new cities compete with cities that existed for 4,000 years?
> 
> Also, how could NY have triple the economy as London? The two cities have about the same population, and, if anything, London is even bigger. London has more billionnaires than any city in the world other than Moscow, and yet its economy is one-third New York's? That's an American lie! This list is as truthful as Dick Cheney and George Bush.


the list prolly only includes greater london, pop 7.5 mil. if it used your def of 20 mil it would obviously be bigger.


----------



## monkeyronin

dnobsemajdnob said:


> I had actually said a good thing about LA and then someone produced this list claiming that LA and even Chicago have bigger economies than London and Paris. How can that be?


Bigger populations, higher GDP per capita in the US.


----------



## dnobsemajdnob

foadi said:


> the list prolly only includes greater london, pop 7.5 mil. if it used your def of 20 mil it would obviously be bigger.


So if we nearly triple London's figure to reflect its true population of about 20m, it's the biggest economy in the world!

Also, NY's and LA's figures should be reduced by at least one-third since the American standard overrstates population by at least that amount. I didn't think that these cities could compare with London and Paris.


----------



## monkeyronin

dnobsemajdnob said:


> So if we nearly triple London's figure to reflect its true population of about 20m, it's the biggest economy in the world!
> 
> Also, NY's and LA's figures should be reduced by at least one-third since the American standard overrstates population by at least that amount. I didn't think that these cities could compare with London and Paris.


No, that isn't how it works. Far-flung residential suburbs don't account for an equal share of the GDP as the central city and all of it's economic activity. Tripling the size of the measured area of London would of course increase its GDP, but not by 3 times.


----------



## dnobsemajdnob

Nevertheless, Tokyo and London must be number 1 and 2 in the world by a very large margin, followed probably by NY, Paris and LA.

However, cities like Chicago, Washington, Boston and San Francisco can't have larger economies than European cities like Munich, Frankfurt, Milan, Barcelona, etc. Maybe they're equal, but not bigger. Europe has been the leading society for 4,000 years. America has only been a leading nation for 50 years and a country for 200 years.


----------



## Xusein

So what?


----------



## foadi

europe leading society for the last 4000 years? wow. just wow.

and monkey is right, you can't just triple the GDP if you triple the population. the GDP per capita of areas surrounding greater london is a lot lower than greater london itself

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

greater london: £30,385
southeast: £22,624
east: £20,524

further the total pop of these three areas is only 21 million and they cover an area much much larger than nyc or la urban area. i don't know why you hijack every thread trying to claim london is the second biggest metro in the world (sometimes you even suggest its the biggest), you need to stop doing this. no one cares.


----------



## monkeyronin

dnobsemajdnob said:


> Nevertheless, Tokyo and London must be number 1 and 2 in the world by a very large margin, followed probably by NY, Paris and LA.
> 
> However, cities like Chicago, Washington, Boston and San Francisco can't have larger economies than European cities like Munich, Frankfurt, Milan, Barcelona, etc. Maybe they're equal, but not bigger. Europe has been the leading society for 4,000 years. America has only been a leading nation for 50 years and a country for 200 years.


I was almost going to respond to that with an actual worded argument...but this just does the job so much better:


----------



## Northsider

<SIGH> Where to begin...?hno:


dnobsemajdnob said:


> The overwhelming majority of Americans never travel outside of their country. Maybe they're afraid to see that Europe is better. It would shatter their myth that the US is the biggest and best.


Prove it. Source? I've been to 9 countries, and only 4 are European. What makes Europe "better". "Better" is purely a subjective word. Maybe _YOUR_ idea of "better" is defined by Europe...but why should that be the definition for everyone else?


dnobsemajdnob said:


> That list was so false and biased in favor of the US.
> 
> I had actually said a good thing about LA and then someone produced this list claiming that LA and even Chicago have bigger economies than London and Paris. How can that be?


I gave you a UK source showing the exact same thing. How can this be biased? Explain. 

LA and Chicago have more corporate headquarters located in the city? I dunno...GDP is not calculated simply on population size. Maybe if you researched it instead of just saying wild things like "Americans are biased" and "American think they are the best".


dnobsemajdnob said:


> So if we nearly triple London's figure to reflect its true population of about 20m, it's the biggest economy in the world!
> 
> Also, NY's and LA's figures should be reduced by at least one-third since the American standard overrstates population by at least that amount. I didn't think that these cities could compare with London and Paris.


Again, GDP doesn't coincide simply with population. There are other factors such as income, input-output, etc. If GDP was based solely on population, then all of Asia would lead. This is not so. 


dnobsemajdnob said:


> Nevertheless, Tokyo and London must be number 1 and 2 in the world by a very large margin, followed probably by NY, Paris and LA.
> 
> However, cities like Chicago, Washington, Boston and San Francisco can't have larger economies than European cities like Munich, Frankfurt, Milan, Barcelona, etc. Maybe they're equal, but not bigger. Europe has been the leading society for 4,000 years. America has only been a leading nation for 50 years and a country for 200 years.


Why can't Chicago, Washington DC, Boston, and SF have larger economies? Why? Because _you_ don't want them to? Such ignorance... I suggest you read what GDP really is, what it means, and how it's calculated. Then read how important such cities as Boston and Chicago are to the US and the world.


Honestly, I really don't think you are this ignorant. I believe you are simply flaming this thread for whatever purpose.:bash: I bet you've never even been outside of your own city to see what the world even looks like.


----------



## hudkina

dnobsemajdnob said:


> The overwhelming majority of Americans never travel outside of their country. Maybe they're afraid to see that Europe is better. It would shatter their myth that the US is the biggest and best.


Or maybe it doesn't really matter to me. I'm not the one trying to imply one continent is better than the other. I'm only saying that many European cities do indeed have suburban areas outside of the dense central cores that tourists are familiar with.

Is this suburban or not?


----------



## deranged

dnob's ignorant, baseless and frustrated anti-American rants were previously laughable, but now they've become downright pathetic.
I don't think I've ever come across a forumer with a worse grasp of logic, either.

Either that, or he's deliberately posting garbage for the sake of it. Samantha v2, US edition perhaps? :lol:


----------



## bigbossman

hudkina said:


> Or maybe it doesn't really matter to me. I'm not the one trying to imply one continent is better than the other. I'm only saying that many European cities do indeed have suburban areas outside of the dense central cores that tourists are familiar with.
> 
> Is this suburban or not?


come on that's extreme and areas like that are on the *edge* of cities. We don't have mile upon mile of bland suburbia looking like that.


----------



## Northsider

> We don't have mile upon mile of bland suburbia looking like that.


But it exists, no? To say Europe doesn't have NA style suburbia is false, as evidenced by the photo above.


----------



## JohnFlint1985

*US suburbs*

San Diego


















KANSAS CITY




















LAS VEGAS 























































Miami




























***********************************************

Stores





































****************************************************
Ofices





































Miami













***************************************


Schools





























***************************************************
Entertainment 














































*******************************************************

places of worship





































********************************************

roads





























************************************************
water cleaning


----------



## Woozle

Er.. most of England, including most of London, is mile upon mile of "suburbia", except in London's case, it's mostly Victorian/Edwardian rowhouses. That's just how the Anglo-American urban sensibilities developed over the last coupla centuries. It's not like there are many middle class Britons living in apartment houses. New York City is a huge exception - and not just for the US. It's the only large city in the Anglophone world where the wealthy tend to live in apartment buildings.

Parisian moneyed population is split between apartment living in the 16th/Neuilly-sur-Seine and such and "bland suburban" living farther out.

Moneyed Moscow population has been moving to suburban homes for the last 10 years.


----------



## foadi

the hell was the point of posting all those pictures?


----------



## _00_deathscar

Woozle said:


> Er.. most of England, including most of London, is mile upon mile of "suburbia", except in London's case, it's mostly Victorian/Edwardian rowhouses. That's just how the Anglo-American urban sensibilities developed over the last coupla centuries. It's not like there are many middle class Britons living in apartment houses. New York City is a huge exception - and not just for the US. *It's the only large city in the Anglophone world where the wealthy tend to live in apartment buildings.*


Hong Kong, Singapore.


----------



## Woozle

Hong Kong is Chinese, and in Singapore, English is a foreign language for most of the population.


----------



## Northsider

foadi said:


> the hell was the point of posting all those pictures?


+1. My browser just crashed.:nuts:


----------



## Shezan

:laugh:


----------



## Xusein

I'm glad we don't have those bland uniform suburbs around these parts.


----------



## JohnFlint1985

Xusein said:


> I'm glad we don't have those bland uniform suburbs around these parts.


which ones are you talking about?


----------



## yooik4890

dnobsemajdnob said:


> The overwhelming majority of Americans never travel outside of their country. Maybe they're afraid to see that Europe is better. It would shatter their myth that the US is the biggest and best.


This is perhaps the most arrogant, ignorant, and hateful post I have ever read. Have you ever stepped off Europe and seen other cultures? The Americas, Africa, Asia, and Oceania are all just as good as Europe.


----------



## Manila-X

This is turning to a *city vs. city*


----------



## JohnFlint1985

WANCH said:


> This is turning to a *city vs. city*


unfortunately...


----------



## Manila-X

JohnFlint1985 said:


> San Diego


Any images of NYC's outskirts especially neighbouring NJ suburbs, Westchester / Putnam counties, Long Island or neighbouring Connecticut suburbs?


----------



## JohnFlint1985

WANCH said:


> Any images of NYC's outskirts especially neighbouring NJ suburbs, Westchester / Putnam counties, Long Island or neighbouring Connecticut suburbs?


I have some from above pictures. And also i made extensive tours around local suburbs in New Jersey and just made pictures of local homes. If that is what you are interested in i will post pictures. 

Long island


----------



## Manila-X

_00_deathscar said:


> English is an official language in both cities, and in Singapore even more so than in Hong Kong.
> 
> In any case, it depends on what he meant by 'rich' - the richest of the richest in Hong Kong still live in mansions.
> 
> Rich people in London live in apartments too, but the richest of the richest live in mansions or rowhomes.


That's because you have four major ethnic groups in SG unlike in HK where its predominantly Chinese. English is an official language in SG but the national language is *Malay*


----------



## Northsider

> So i'd say the types of suburbia do differ!


They differ within Metro areas as well. Not _ALL_ suburbs of a particular city look like this. Not _all_ European suburbs are the same either. For example, the suburb I grew up in doesn't look anything like the pictures above. The pictures shown above are so selective.


> basing your argument on the photo is dumb, because for all you know that photo could be the only street like that.


You are doing the same for NA, no? As I mentioned, _I_ didn't grow up in a suburb like that, and I can't really even think of one near me that looks like that except the uber-rich areas or the ones on periphery of the metro area. This is my suburb that I grew up in...wow, it's so spread out! /sarcastic Cmon, this area is more dense than Houston and countless other US cities. Not all US suburbs are sprawled out like this.


----------



## Chrissib

foadi said:


> large masses of ppl are never depressing. it can only be a good thing for skyscraper development, and thats what we all want right? you should wish your country had as many people as china johnflint


Give it 70 years. Then the US certainly will have as many people as China will have.


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor

*@ Chrissib*

^^ Somehow, I doubt the U.S. will ever reach the billion-people mark. Even if one takes into account immigration, there is no way that the U.S. will have the population to rival India's and China's.


----------



## Chrissib

The Cebuano Exultor said:


> ^^ Somehow, I doubt the U.S. will ever reach the billion-people mark. Even if one takes into account immigration, there is no way that the U.S. will have the population to rival India's and China's.


China will loose its status as a country of a billion people in the second half of this century. The birth rate of the US is higher than that of China, and in the future, the gap will widen up. Even if China will abolish the one child policy. When it's developed, it could easily have a birthrate in the 1.0 - 1.3 children/woman range, like Taiwan, HK or Singapore.


----------



## Isek

Predictions regarding a time span of more than 30 or 40 years are nonsense. Look at the past 40 years. Ever expected a world like this?


----------



## bigbossman

Northsider said:


> They differ within Metro areas as well. Not _ALL_ suburbs of a particular city look like this. Not _all_ European suburbs are the same either. For example, the suburb I grew up in doesn't look anything like the pictures above. The pictures shown above are so selective.


be is that maybe, no one has offered contrary evidence that they aren't. The pictures are a sizeable selection of differing cities which show extensive detached development not prevelant on the same scale in Europe




> You are doing the same for NA, no?


quite clearly i am not, you based you evidence on the picture of a few semi-detached houses on a street. I based mine on noit just the extensive arial pictures presented, but on being inflicted with US television and film from a young age and seeing how they depict suburbia. You can argue that these forms of media play on stereotypes but given that British television shows the types of suburbia we are used to seeing and the pictures i have seen of US sububurbia i'd say the stereotype and view point is based on the truth



> As I mentioned, _I_ didn't grow up in a suburb like that, and I can't really even think of one near me that looks like that except the uber-rich areas or the ones on periphery of the metro area. This is my suburb that I grew up in...wow, it's so spread out! /sarcastic Cmon, this area is more dense than Houston and countless other US cities. Not all US suburbs are sprawled out like this.


now i am unsure whether you are using sarcasm to say that you didn't grow up in the subrub in your link as that enhances the stereotype. Or your sarcasm is because you genuinely belief it doesn't?


----------



## JohnFlint1985

foadi said:


> large masses of ppl are never depressing. it can only be a good thing for skyscraper development, and thats what we all want right? you should wish your country had as many people as china johnflint



Well I am for large amount of people, but just not this Chinese style as I saw it on the picture. That to me looks depressing. Skyscraper development should reflect the need for it, not just pure desire to show off as in Dubai for example. After all skyscraper - is a building / place to do business and is made in such way due to lack / price of land. So building skyscrapers for the sake of skyscrapers - is pretty shallow.


----------



## JohnFlint1985

Chrissib said:


> China will loose its status as a country of a billion people in the second half of this century. The birth rate of the US is higher than that of China, and in the future, the gap will widen up. Even if China will abolish the one child policy. When it's developed, it could easily have a birthrate in the 1.0 - 1.3 children/woman range, like Taiwan, HK or Singapore.



question - why do we need such a huge population? we should have enough according to natural coarse of events as people desire. If it will ever come to that - so be it. Huge population can be a blessing and a curse at the same time. For China as of today (but maybe not tomorrow and certainly not before the current economic growth there) huge poor population of peasants is a plus.


----------



## Northsider

> now i am unsure whether you are using sarcasm to say that you didn't grow up in the subrub in your link as that enhances the stereotype. Or your sarcasm is because you genuinely belief it doesn't?


My sarcasm is that this is a "typical" suburb in my opinion (yes, I did grow up there). It has a density greater than that of some major US cities.


> quite clearly i am not, you based you evidence on the picture of a few semi-detached houses on a street. I based mine on noit just the extensive arial pictures presented, but on being inflicted with US television and film from a young age and seeing how they depict suburbia.


Well, I have visited a handful cities in Europe, and even ventured out to the suburbs and beyond in UK, Ireland, France, and Germany. I would still argue that NA style suburbs exist and are more plentiful than maybe you think. It's not the most _common_ style by a long shot...but you make it seem these exist nowhere. Besides, I have also seen suburban detached housing in movies as well for UK...does that make my opinion invalid?


> The pictures are a sizeable selection of differing cities which show extensive detached development not prevelant on the same scale in Europe


Cmon, the poster clearly went searching for these styles, and sure they were easy to find. But it's not the only style to be found in the suburbs. I just gave one example of Elmhurst IL, which has a comparable density to Bromley, Hillingdon, and probably some more suburbs of London (not to mention Chicago suburbs like Cicero, Berwyn, and Oak Park have comparable density to Chicago itself, and even higher density in Berwyn's case) . I'm not saying the UK suburbs are dominated by this NA style, I'm just saying they _exist_.


----------



## null

JohnFlint1985 said:


> question - why do we need such a huge population? we should have enough according to natural coarse of events as people desire. If it will ever come to that - so be it. Huge population can be a blessing and a curse at the same time. For China as of today (but maybe not tomorrow and certainly not before the current economic growth there) huge poor population of peasants is a plus.


I agree, overpopulation sucks.


----------



## Chrissib

JohnFlint1985 said:


> question - why do we need such a huge population? we should have enough according to natural coarse of events as people desire. If it will ever come to that - so be it. Huge population can be a blessing and a curse at the same time. For China as of today (but maybe not tomorrow and certainly not before the current economic growth there) huge poor population of peasants is a plus.


Population isn't about needs, it is individual decisions. If the majority likes to have many children, the population grows, if it's necessary or not.


----------



## Chrissib

null said:


> I agree, overpopulation sucks.


I don't think that there are any overpopulated places on earth.


----------



## bayviews

Isek said:


> Predictions regarding a time span of more than 30 or 40 years are nonsense. Look at the past 40 years. Ever expected a world like this?



How true, straight line projections can turn out to be very hazerdous. 

40 years ago, when Mao & the Red Guards were running China, who would have guessed that today we would be buying so much of our stuff from China.....& borrowing billions from China to pay for it!


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor

*@ JohnFlint1985*



JohnFlint1985 said:


> Well I am for large amount of people, but just not this Chinese style as I saw it on the picture. That to me looks depressing. Skyscraper development should reflect the need for it, not just pure desire to show off as in Dubai for example. After all skyscraper - is a building / place to do business and is made in such way due to lack / price of land. So building skyscrapers for the sake of skyscrapers - is pretty shallow.


^^ China would need them in the coming years. It's still has the world's most resilient major economy. As their cities absorb the hundreds of millions of rural migrants for the coming two decades, the abundant supply of office and residential space would ensure that no property-price bubbles similar to the one that wrecked Japan in the late 1980s would ensue.


----------



## the spliff fairy

the Chinese population grows by 10-14 million every year (as opposed to 3.3 million in the US). If everything in China stayed static but US grew at that rate, it would still take 300 years just to reach China's present population.

The birthrate has grown by 8% since they relaxed the one-child policy in 2003 - which was only ever strictly enforced in the cities anyway. Its now approaching US levels (13.8 births per 1000 compared to 14.2).

However its not so much the birthrate but the fact people are living longer as China develops. Death rate is only 7 per 1000 people - life expectancy is 73 but rising fast, in the developed cities such as HK and Macau they are the highest in the world (84).

This of course does not key in immigration into the country if it becomes first world.


----------



## hudkina

bigbossman said:


> be is that maybe, no one has offered contrary evidence that they aren't. The pictures are a sizeable selection of differing cities which show extensive detached development not prevelant on the same scale in Europe


The argument isn't whether Europe has "American-style" suburbs, but rather that Europe has suburbs in the first place.



> quite clearly i am not, you based you evidence on the picture of a few semi-detached houses on a street.


I actually posted several pictures of "suburban" neighborhoods in Greater London earlier in the thread. You can also check out Google Maps to see streetviews of just about every street in Greater London. The vast majority of Greater London is filled with various styles of "suburban" housing, whether they are detached and semi-detached single-family homes or rowhouses. You can't possibly expect people to believe that every London resident lives in apartment blocks and highrises...



> I based mine on noit just the extensive arial pictures presented, but on being inflicted with US television and film from a young age and seeing how they depict suburbia. You can argue that these forms of media play on stereotypes but given that British television shows the types of suburbia we are used to seeing and the pictures i have seen of US sububurbia i'd say the stereotype and view point is based on the truth


That's like saying all of Europe is nothing but dirty little villages with no running water and chickens running through the alleys... I see movies and commercials, so it must be true.

The U.S. is a pretty big country and suburbs have been spreading out around our cities since the late 19th century. Do you honestly think all of America's suburbs look like the crap filling up the deserts around Las Vegas and Phoenix?

Does this look like the Nevada desert to you?


----------



## Cristovão471

Chrissib said:


> I don't think that there are any overpopulated places on earth.


ha...

that's a joke right?


----------



## bigbossman

Northsider said:


> My sarcasm is that this is a "typical" suburb in my opinion (yes, I did grow up there). It has a density greater than that of some major US cities.


And my point was that that as admirable as it is in the american context is not really admirable at all!



> Well, I have visited a handful cities in Europe, and even ventured out to the suburbs and beyond in UK, Ireland, France, and Germany. I would still argue that NA style suburbs exist and are more plentiful than maybe you think. It's not the most _common_ style by a long shot...but you make it seem these exist nowhere. Besides, I have also seen suburban detached housing in movies as well for UK...does that make my opinion invalid?


when did i ever say it doesn't exist? I said it doesn't exist on the scale that has been demonstrated in pictures on this thread and when you look on any of this arial photo sites. 



> Cmon, the poster clearly went searching for these styles, and sure they were easy to find. But it's not the only style to be found in the suburbs. I just gave one example of Elmhurst IL, which has a comparable density to Bromley, Hillingdon, and probably some more suburbs of London (not to mention Chicago suburbs like Cicero, Berwyn, and Oak Park have comparable density to Chicago itself, and even higher density in Berwyn's case) .


you can't compare Hillingdon and Bromley

here is a rough urban map from wiki showing where the population is located










Hillingdon is the borough furthest west as you can see the southern half is totally empty, because that is heathrow airport, and the north is green belt land.

Bromley is the borough furthest south east as you can see it is easily more than 50% uncovered, and if you had a bit of knowledge you'd know the majority of the borough is covered by green belt.



> I'm not saying the UK suburbs are dominated by this NA style, I'm just saying they _exist_.


Yeah but you seem to be saying they exist on the same scale, when they quite clearly don't that is my point. Not that we don't have suburbs but what you define is suburbs is not comparable to what we do.


----------



## bigbossman

hudkina said:


> The argument isn't whether Europe has "American-style" suburbs, but rather that Europe has suburbs in the first place.


it seems people are having different debates on different things...



> I actually posted several pictures of "suburban" neighborhoods in Greater London earlier in the thread. You can also check out Google Maps to see streetviews of just about every street in Greater London. The vast majority of Greater London is filled with various styles of "suburban" housing, whether they are detached and semi-detached single-family homes or rowhouses. You can't possibly expect people to believe that every London resident lives in apartment blocks and highrises...


when did i ever say that. I said earlier in this thread, and did spliff fairy that you can't judge a house in London by it's external appearance, as many of what you call "rowhouses" have been subdivided into what you call "apartments", and that is not obvious by looking on streetview or even travelling around the city. 





> That's like saying all of Europe is nothing but dirty little villages with no running water and chickens running through the alleys... I see movies and commercials, so it must be true.


yeah good one, remember Europe is a collection of diffrent countries with lots of different cultures and america is "one" country with a very defined culture and lesser cultural deviation. 

And hollywood is making films and television? for american audiences first, so american shows/commercials depictng Europe will be stereotypical, just like our shows depicting your continent are. 



> The U.S. is a pretty big country and suburbs have been spreading out around our cities since the late 19th century. Do you honestly think all of America's suburbs look like the crap filling up the deserts around Las Vegas and Phoenix?


And that's a bad thing totally and i hope you agree...



> Does this look like the Nevada desert to you?


a little of research has discovered that hamtramck where that picture is from is a enclave city surrounded by the city of detroit, about 5 miles (8 km) from the centre, hardly what you'd call a suburban location. Also Hamtramck has lost nearly 60% of it's population since it's peak. I'd call that an inner city neighbourhood not a suburb...


----------



## Anderson Geimz

You really lost it when you started splitting up the Blue Banana. 
Some of those are not seperate megalopoli, but more comparable to US CSA's.


----------



## deranged

Yuri S Andrade said:


> Thanks, deranged! Well, I was a little bit conservative, that's why I didn't talk about "Chi-Pitts", "San-San" and a 55 million "Bos-Wash".


I know, that's why I didn't include Jacksonville and Gainesville. 



Yuri S Andrade said:


> I still prefer to regard Florida East Coast (Miami-Orlando) and Florida West Coast (Tampa-Lakeland-Naples) as distinct areas.


Fair enough, but there is relatively continuous development south of the I-4 in Florida - much more so than between Olympia-Portland, Cleveland-Columbus, and Greenville-Columbia, all of which you have combined despite each having 80-100 miles of sparsely populated areas, so to me that seems inconsistent.



Yuri S Andrade said:


> Of course, "megalopolis" is a very subjetive concept.


I agree - definitions can range from very restrictive to very inclusive.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade

Anderson Geimz said:


> You really lost it when you started splitting up the Blue Banana.
> Some of those are not seperate megalopoli, but more comparable to US CSA's.


No way. Randstad would be a CSA; Bruxelles-Antwerpen-Gent Triangle, the same. London-South East-East, other CSA; Paris and the adjacent departments; Lombardia could be another CSA. In Germany, we have a CSA in the Nordrhein-Westfalen state. 

The European megalopolis would be "England" (except Cumbria, Devon, Cornwall); "Paris-Lille-Le Havre"; "Lombardia-Liguria-Piedmont" and "Nordrhein-Westfalen/Rheinland-Pfalz/Saarland/Hesse/Baden-Württemberg".

Banana Blue doesn't exist. We cannot compare something like "Bos-Wash", where is quite hard to find "empty" space between the cities, with this vague idea of a European Megalopolis crossing oceans, mountain ranges, etc. I think the American forumers made this point quite clear in the other pages.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade

deranged said:


> Fair enough, but there is relatively continuous development south of the I-4 in Florida - much more so than between Olympia-Portland, Cleveland-Columbus, and a few others which you have combined, so to me that seems inconsistent..


Ok, but the distance is bigger. Florida cities have this peculiar geography because the ocean and the swamps. So the growth is just in two directions, while the other cities grow everywhere. However, the distances don't get any smaller.

About the Columbus and Cincinnati, it's necessary to consider the presence of Dayton-Springfield.



deranged said:


> I agree - definitions can range from very restrictive to very inclusive.


Yes, and I have also this limitation because I don't know the area. I hope the mates from US could help improve the list, without bias of course.


----------



## Hebrewtext

*Tel Aviv-Jerusalem-Amman (15 million)*

*Beirut-Damascuos (15 million)*

*Cairo-Alexandria (60 million)*

*distances *
Tel Aviv -Jerusalem 50 km/33 mi
Tel Aviv -Amman 100 km/65 mi
Beirut-Damascous 79 km/49 mi
Beirut-Tel Aviv 198 km/122 mi


----------



## Yuri S Andrade

^^
There is a wall between Jerusalem and Amman. The urban areas must be integrated in order to be regarded as megalopolis. For the same reason, we cannot say that Tijuana and San Diego are part of a single urban complex.


----------



## Chrissib

Yuri S Andrade said:


> ^^
> There is a wall between Jerusalem and Amman. The urban areas must be integrated in order to be regarded as megalopolis. For the same reason, we cannot say that Tijuana and San Diego are part of a single urban complex.


They can't be together in a metropolitan area, but walls are not a reason to split a megalopolis.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade

^^
I assume it should exist free circulation of people between the urban centres. I may be wrong, but for me that's a condition for the existence of a megalopolis.

That's why the comprehensive transport network of Germany with its _autobahns_ and the US interstate system is so important on the definition. For me, the circulation between the cities is an essencial condition.


----------



## Anderson Geimz

Yuri S Andrade said:


> No way. Randstad would be a CSA; Bruxelles-Antwerpen-Gent Triangle, the same. London-South East-East, other CSA; Paris and the adjacent departments; Lombardia could be another CSA. In Germany, we have a CSA in the Nordrhein-Westfalen state.
> 
> The European megalopolis would be "England" (except Cumbria, Devon, Cornwall); "Paris-Lille-Le Havre"; "Lombardia-Liguria-Piedmont" and "Nordrhein-Westfalen/Rheinland-Pfalz/Saarland/Hesse/Baden-Württemberg".
> 
> Banana Blue doesn't exist. We cannot compare something like "Bos-Wash", where is quite hard to find "empty" space between the cities, with this vague idea of a European Megalopolis crossing oceans, mountain ranges, etc. I think the American forumers made this point quite clear in the other pages.


LOL have you ever been to Bosh-Wash?


----------



## hudkina

Have you? While the Northeast Megalopolis is easily broken up into three "subsections" each subsection has a virtually endless stretch of urbanity from end to end.

For example, if you travel along US-1/US-40 from Quantico, VA to just east of Perryville, MD that's a nearly 110 mile stretch of urbanity with virtually no farmland and very limited green space. Between Perryville, MD and North East, MD there is a 4 mile gap with virtually no development that separates the "Washington/Baltimore" subsection from the "Philadelphia/New York" subsection.

Traveling from just west of North East, MD to Elkton, MD the area is semi-developed, though not exactly rural. From Elkton, MD to Holyoke, MA there is virtually no farmland and very little undeveloped gaps. That covers a stretch of nearly 300 miles of virtually uninterrupted development.

The "Providence/Boston" subsection is the last of the three. It's also the most isolated. The main connection between the two is along the Atlantic coast from New Haven to Newport. It's an 80 mile stretch that, while not as urban as the rest of the region has quite a few relatively large cities and towns. If you travel between Springfield and Worcester, the gap is smaller, but the area between the cities is mostly undeveloped.


----------



## foadi

i dont know if i would say philly to nyc is completely developed. ive driven between the two cities and i remember seeing a lot of empty land. maybe i drove the wrong route tho i dunno


----------



## hudkina

If you drive on the interstates, you don't see as much of the development. If you drive along US-1 from Trenton to New York you pass by residential neighborhoods, strip malls, industrial parks, etc. with virtually no break in the development.


----------



## Anderson Geimz

hudkina said:


> Have you? While the Northeast Megalopolis is easily broken up into three "subsections" each subsection has a virtually endless stretch of urbanity from end to end.


Yes I have, contrary to you who never has set foot on the European continent and still thinks he is fit to make comments about it because he has Google Earth.

The Alps are more densely populated than parts of "Bosh-Wash".


----------



## Anderson Geimz

hudkina said:


> If you drive on the interstates, you don't see as much of the development. If you drive along US-1 from Trenton to New York you pass by residential neighborhoods, strip malls, industrial parks, etc. with virtually no break in the development.


Some of this "development" is less dense than European countryside, that's the point...


----------



## hudkina

You are the biggest hypocrite on this website. You claim Americans are "ignorant" of Europe, but you don't do any fact-checking of your own.

Do you honestly mean to tell me the European "countryside" looks like this:

























That 25 mile stretch between the Delaware and Raritan (i.e. from Trenton to New Brunswick) has around 650,000 people in about 300 sq. mi. I highly doubt the European countryside has a density of 2,000 ppsm...


----------



## Anderson Geimz

No but some stretches (including the whole of England and the Benelux) have a density of >1000 ppsm, which is the US Census cut off for urban areas.

And no the European countryside does not look like that hideous sprawl, it looks like countryside with much more urban towns and much better transportation links.

I'm not the hypocrite here, if Bosh-Wash is a megalopolis, then so is the Blue Banana.


----------



## Shmack

Oh c'mone.. how can one argue that the americans are kings of suburbia building??


----------



## hudkina

Anderson Geimz said:


> No but some stretches (including the whole of England and the Benelux) have a density of >1000 ppsm, which is the US Census cut off for urban areas.


New Jersey has a density of 1,200 ppsm, but that doesn't mean the entire state is a single urbanized area. The fact that you bring that tired argument up proves how little you know about how American urbanized areas are delineated. In fact, the minimum is actually 500 ppsm, not 1,000 ppsm, but we're talking about on a very small scale. The "building blocks" for urbanized areas are tiny blocks and block groups that are smaller than 2 sq. mi. The VAST majority of the land in England has densities well below 500 ppsm.





Anderson Geimz said:


> And no the European countryside does not look like that hideous sprawl, it looks like countryside with much more urban towns and much better transportation links.
> 
> I'm not the hypocrite here, if Bosh-Wash is a megalopolis, then so is the Blue Banana.


That's exactly WHY you are a hypocrite. First you say "oh, we don't have suburban sprawl," but then you say "the 'Blue Banana' is just like the Northeast Megalopolis." You can't have it both ways.

And really? No sprawl?

What's this?
English Sprawl:









German Sprawl:









French Sprawl:









Italian Sprawl:









Seriously. Why are you so pompous?


----------



## deranged

Yuri S Andrade said:


> About the Columbus and Cincinnati, it's necessary to consider the presence of Dayton-Springfield.


Not Cincinnati... Cleveland. 



Yuri S Andrade said:


> Ok, but the distance is bigger. Florida cities have this peculiar geography because the ocean and the swamps. So the growth is just in two directions, while the other cities grow everywhere. However, the distances don't get any smaller.


I take it you're referring to end-to-end distance (and not distance between cities). In that sense, I see why you're separating SW and SE Florida, given the distance of 480 miles between Miami and Naples via Orlando, compared to 440 miles from Boston to Washington with 3.5x the population.

However, IMO distance doesn't matter as long as development is relatively continuous. That is why I consider it a single megalopolis, but since this is a subjective call, I'd say we agree to disagree. 

Still, if distance is taken into account, there ends up being a tradeoff between distance and development in terms of relative importance when defining the extent of a megalopolis. To that end, I just think you're over-emphasising distance over development, as although Olympia-Portland, Cleveland-Columbus, and Greenville-Columbia are separated by less than 150 miles, those corridors have very little development for long sections of 80-100 miles.

Essentially, I believe that if SW and SE Florida are to be separated because the distance is too great, the above three should also be separated because the level of development is insufficient. I know that this is subjective, and you're entitled to prioiritise distance if you prefer - so again, I think we should agree to disagree.



Yuri S Andrade said:


> Yes, and I have also this limitation because I don't know the area. I hope the mates from US could help improve the list, without bias of course.


I'll post a list of Australian megalopoleis soon.


----------



## deranged

*AUSTRALIAN MEGALOPOLEIS*

Statistical division/district (equivalent to metro area) names are listed in capitals.
Region and council names are listed in title case.

*Sydney Region ---------- 5,398,478*



Code:


SYDNEY		4,399,722
NEWCASTLE	  531,191
WOLLONGONG	  284,169
Illawarra (bal)	  139,318
Singleton	   23,458
Lithgow		   20,620

*Melbourne Region ------- 4,507,422*



Code:


MELBOURNE	3,892,419
GEELONG		  172,300
BALLARAT	   91,787
LA TROBE VALLEY	   78,531
East Barwon	   64,088
South Gippsland	   56,061
Central Highlands  41,736
Macedon Ranges	   40,939
West Gippsland	   36,187
Mitchell	   33,374

*South East Queensland -- 3,077,752*



Code:


BRISBANE	1,945,639
GOLD COAST	  558,888
SUNSHINE COAST	  237,562
TOOWOOMBA	  125,339
West Moreton	   90,738
Sun Ct Hinterland  75,242
Tweed (bal)	   25,793
Gympie		   18,551

*Distances *

From Sydney ....... Singleton 181 km, Newcastle 159 km, Lithgow 142 km, Wollongong 85 km, Ulladulla 226 km
From Melbourne ... Ballarat 117 km, Geelong 75 km, Lorne 140 km, Traralgon (La Trobe Valley) 165 km
From Brisbane ..... Gympie 167 km, Sunshine Coast 104 km, Toowoomba 125 km, Gold Coast 78 km, Murwillumbah 131 km

*Source*
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/DetailsPage/3218.02007-08?OpenDocument
All figures June 2008


----------



## Hebrewtext

Yuri S Andrade said:


> ^^
> There is a wall between Jerusalem and Amman. The urban areas must be integrated in order to be regarded as megalopolis. For the same reason, we cannot say that Tijuana and San Diego are part of a single urban complex.


there is no wall between Jerusalem and Amman but border ,the wall today is between Israel and the Palestinian areas, but some people do pass daily the checkups to work in Israel , though in smaller numbers than 15 years ago.


----------



## GENIUS LOCI

foadi said:


> i dont know if i would say philly to nyc is completely developed. ive driven between the two cities and i remember seeing a lot of empty land. maybe i drove the wrong route tho i dunno


I got the same impression driving from NYC to Boston: there were long not urbanized 'gaps' 

In Italy you can hardly find such gaps. I don't mean in most dense areas, but in the less dense ones
Italy is quite dense even for Europe (and orography and way to settle makes it appear even denser), but there are many other part of Europe as dense as that
Sometimes to compare different continents with different kinds of 'settlements' is quite difficult: even places with similar density could appear totally different (e.g. in Europe there are plenty of towns and villages created along thousands years sprawled quite everywhere, while in America there is much more concentration close to big urban areas)

Anyway Bos-Wash is a megalopolis for sure: gaps between cities have a relative importance

About continuity in suburban sprawl in America: I remember the road from Toronto to Niagara Falls and then Buffalo in USA was pretty urbanized all along


----------



## Anderson Geimz

hudkina said:


> New Jersey has a density of 1,200 ppsm, but that doesn't mean the entire state is a single urbanized area. The fact that you bring that tired argument up proves how little you know about how American urbanized areas are delineated. In fact, the minimum is actually 500 ppsm, not 1,000 ppsm, but we're talking about on a very small scale. The "building blocks" for urbanized areas are tiny blocks and block groups that are smaller than 2 sq. mi. The VAST majority of the land in England has densities well below 500 ppsm.
> 
> That's exactly WHY you are a hypocrite. First you say "oh, we don't have suburban sprawl," but then you say "the 'Blue Banana' is just like the Northeast Megalopolis." You can't have it both ways.
> 
> And really? No sprawl?
> 
> What's this?
> 
> Seriously. Why are you so pompous?


Oh give it a rest...There is no American style sprawl in Europe. Not in scale and not in nature. Anyone can see those pictures are quite different from American sprawl. You wouldn't know because you never even have been here. That should be a good enough reason for you to shut about it altogether...

There is no hypocricy in my statements. A megalopolis is a collection of interconneted metro areas. Nowhere in that definition does it say anything that sprawl is a requirement for this. The European metro areas are well interconnected.

Bosh-Wash is a megalopolis and so is the Blue Banana. More people live here on a smaller area, that should be your clue...


----------



## Yuri S Andrade

^^
If Blue Banana exists, "Bos-Wash" should be connect to North Carolina's urban areas and most of all with the "Chi-Pitts" and "Toronto-Buffalo-Montreal". Of course that is an absurd. Megalopolis is England for example. The densities in that case is close to "Bos-Wash". All the others European megalopolis has a lower density than Bos-Wash.

Urban areas:
Tokyo - 34,250,000 - 7,835 km² - 4,350 hab/km²
New York - 19,712,000 - 11,264 km² - 1,750 hab/km²
São Paulo - 18,700,000 - 2,590 km² - 7,200 hab/km²
Los Angeles - 13,829,000 - 5,812 km² - 2,400 hab/km²
Moscow - 13,250,000 - 4,533 km² - 2,900 hab/km²
Paris - 10,400,000 - 3,043 km² - 3,400 hab/km²
London - 8,278,000 - 1,623 km² - 5,100 hab/km²
Essen-Düsseldorf - 7,250,000 - 2,642 km² - 2,750 hab/km²
http://www.demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf

The numbers seem very similar to me. Only São paulo could be regard as a dense city. London too, but that's because the Green Belt. Outside, they have much lower densities.


----------



## Anderson Geimz

Please don't quote from demographia...


----------



## Yuri S Andrade

^^
The data is wrong? Which one? You see, the devil can say 2+2=4. That will not change the fact.


----------



## foadi

demographia is useless as a source for information.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade

^^
Ok, those are the official numbers for Brazil (IBGE/Embrapa 2000):

*------------ Pop. 2000 --- Urban Area Km²*
1.São Paulo -- 16.511.467 -- 1.867
2.Rio de Janeiro -- 10.518.013 -- 1.042
3.Belo Horizonte -- 3.386.657 -- 525
4.Porto Alegre -- 3.054.380 -- 537
5.Recife -- 2.904.111 -- 209
6.Salvador -- 2.627.392 -- 173
7.Fortaleza -- 2.611.928 -- 221
8.Brasília -- 2.294.011 -- 709
9.Curitiba -- 2.179.473 -- 442
10.Belém -- 1.729.865 -- 211
11.Goiânia -- 1.421.353 -- 394
12.Manaus -- 1.396.768 -- 230
13.Santos -- 1.391.226 -- 155
14.Vitória -- 1.269.530 -- 231
15.Campinas -- 1.230.421 -- 301
16.João Pessoa -- 838.678 -- 118
17.São Luís -- 837.584 -- 158
18.Natal -- 834.874 -- 131
19.Maceió -- 795.804 -- 88
20.Teresina -- 790.536 -- 124
21.São José dos Campos -- 716.094 -- 123
22.Cuiabá -- 687.835 -- 208
23.Campo Grande -- 655.914 -- 154
24.Florianópolis -- 644.236 -- 95
25.Aracaju -- 607.989 -- 51
26.Americana-Sumaré -- 585.123 -- 156
27.Sorocaba -- 579.449 -- 100
28.Londrina -- 515.311 -- 139
29.Ribeirão Preto -- 502.760 -- 127
30.Uberlândia -- 488.982 -- 135
31.Jundiaí -- 455.267 -- 72
32.Juiz de Fora -- 453.002 -- 68
33.Feira de Santana -- 431.730 -- 72
34.Joinville -- 414.972 -- 114
35.Volta Redonda-Barra Mansa -- 407.130 -- 43
36.Petrolina-Juazeiro -- 393.100 -- 32
37.Campos dos Goytacazes -- 364.177 -- 40
38.Maringá -- 353.471 -- 66
39.Campina Grande -- 337.484 -- 43
40.São José do Rio Preto -- 337.289 -- 77
41.Caxias do Sul -- 333.391 -- 66
42.Piracicaba -- 317.374 -- 32
43.Bauru -- 310.442 -- 69
44.Pelotas -- 301.081 -- 48

For further information: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=723376


----------



## salaverryo

:nono: Buenos Aires and Montevideo are too far apart to be considered a megalopolis.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade

^^
There are only 180 km between Buenos Aires (14 million people) and Montevideo (1.8 million).


----------



## foadi

i thought you didn't like crossing national borders (ala san diego/tijuana)


----------



## Yuri S Andrade

^^
It's not necessary passports to cross the Argentinian-Uruguay-Brazilian-Paraguay borders. Tens of thousands of people do that on daily basis. Almost no control on the borders. For the same reason we have Toronto-Buffalo, Seattle-Vancouver and Detroit-Windsor.


----------



## kayanathera

Anderson Geimz said:


> Yes I have, contrary to you who never has set foot on the European continent and still thinks he is fit to make comments about it because he has Google Earth.
> 
> The Alps are more densely populated than parts of "Bosh-Wash".


actually guys you are comparing two different things.
in europe it may be that the countryside can be statistically more dense but that does not qualify for a megalopolis since in europe these small comunities are generally self-sufficient having been developed on the ruins of old villages.in america very few suburban areas are literally independent, able to sustein themself but they are rather dependent on the surrending areas to be able to exists.one clear exemple in europe as I said they were build on the ruins of older settlements and thats why they were build generally on a water suplly thus many houses have their own water well.take los angeles for exemple who is heavily dependent on water brought from distant places.very few european regions meet the megalopolis criterias since most of them can largely survive on their own.american urban area even though not so dense populated are much more dependent for their utilities and so they intermingled even if they are more distant


----------



## foadi

Yuri S Andrade said:


> ^^
> It's not necessary passports to cross the Argentinian-Uruguay-Brazilian-Paraguay borders. Tens of thousands of people do that on daily basis. Almost no control on the borders. For the same reason we have Toronto-Buffalo, Seattle-Vancouver and Detroit-Windsor.


crossing the border between seattle and vancouver is a pain in the ass.


----------



## Anderson Geimz

kayanathera said:


> actually guys you are comparing two different things.
> in europe it may be that the countryside can be statistically more dense but that does not qualify for a megalopolis since in europe these small comunities are generally self-sufficient having been developed on the ruins of old villages.in america very few suburban areas are literally independent, able to sustein themself but they are rather dependent on the surrending areas to be able to exists.one clear exemple in europe as I said they were build on the ruins of older settlements and thats why they were build generally on a water suplly thus many houses have their own water well.take los angeles for exemple who is heavily dependent on water brought from distant places.very few european regions meet the megalopolis criterias since most of them can largely survive on their own.american urban area even though not so dense populated are much more dependent for their utilities and so they intermingled even if they are more distant


Absolute horsemanure...


----------



## hudkina

Anderson Geimz said:


> Oh give it a rest...There is no American style sprawl in Europe. Not in scale and not in nature. Anyone can see those pictures are quite different from American sprawl. You wouldn't know because you never even have been here. That should be a good enough reason for you to shut about it altogether...


I don't know if you truly believe that or you're just arguing for arguments sake. I'm not sure what "American sprawl" is, but sprawl does exist in Europe, and it exists on a large scale. You've got to be blind to not realize this... Either that or you have the biggest double standard imagineable.



> There is no hypocricy in my statements. A megalopolis is a collection of interconneted metro areas. Nowhere in that definition does it say anything that sprawl is a requirement for this. The European metro areas are well interconnected.


Every city in the world is interconnected. I can leave my house right now and be to just about any major city across the globe in a matter of hours. A megalopolis must also have a high degree of connectivity from the perspective of the built-environment. It's not good enough that two cities are connected via major transportation networks...



> Bosh-Wash is a megalopolis and so is the Blue Banana. More people live here on a smaller area, that should be your clue...


If the Blue Banana is a megalopolis, than the Northeast Megalopolis must also include the Rust Belt megalopolis and the Canadian megalopolis. I'll call it the Brown 'H' You're creating a slippery slope...

Also the 140+ "interconnected" urbanized areas that make up the Northeast Megalopolis have a population of nearly 45 million in area that is smaller than the Netherlands. They're not spread out over a distance of 1,200 miles and they don't have vast stretches of farmland between the major cities. If you can't tell the difference between the two then I'm not sure what to tell you.


----------



## Anderson Geimz

hudkina said:


> I don't know if you truly believe that or you're just arguing for arguments sake. I'm not sure what "American sprawl" is, but sprawl does exist in Europe, and it exists on a large scale. You've got to be blind to not realize this... Either that or you have the biggest double standard imagineable.


Dude, you never even been here. I live here. How can I be "blind".
You have ZERO credibility on the subject...



> Every city in the world is interconnected. I can leave my house right now and be to just about any major city across the globe in a matter of hours. A megalopolis must also have a high degree of connectivity from the perspective of the built-environment. It's not good enough that two cities are connected via major transportation networks...


This definition would also exclude the NE corridor from being a megalopolis.



> If the Blue Banana is a megalopolis, than the Northeast Megalopolis must also include the Rust Belt megalopolis and the Canadian megalopolis. I'll call it the Brown 'H' You're creating a slippery slope...


Luckily, you are not the world authority on what constitutes a megalopolis or not. The Blue Banana is a firmly established term among geographers. Your fantasy fabrications on the other hand are not. You are trying to set this up so that only American type "interconnecting" sprawl can create a megalopolis, disqualifying almost every other place on earth and it's not going to fly...
No megalopolis other than Bosh-Wash and maybe LA-SD-TJ is connected by low density sprawl.



> Also the 140+ "interconnected" urbanized areas that make up the Northeast Megalopolis have a population of nearly 45 million in area that is smaller than the Netherlands.


LIE...



> They're not spread out over a distance of 1,200 miles and they don't have vast stretches of farmland between the major cities. If you can't tell the difference between the two then I'm not sure what to tell you.


Not that these are ANY of the criteria for forming a megalopolis, but they're mostly not even true...


----------



## Yuri S Andrade

*Suggestion:*

Why don't we try to reach a consensus? I think is more productive than this endless debate.

For example, I defined Bos-Wash as following:

_CSA/MSA ------------------------------------------ 2007 ------- 2000 ---- Growth %
New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA -- 21,961,994 -- 21,361,797 -- 2.8%
Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV CSA -- 8,241,912 -- 7,572,647 -- 8.8%
Boston-Worcester-Manchester, MA-RI-NH CSA -- 7,476,689 -- 7,298,695 -- 2.4%
Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland, PA-NJ-DE-MD CSA -- 6,385,461 -- 6,207,223 -- 2.9%
Hartford-West Hartford-Willimantic, CT CSA -- 1,306,151 -- 1,257,709 -- 3.8%
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ MSA -- 803,844 -- 740,394 -- 8.6%
Springfield, MA MSA -- 682,657 -- 680,014 -- 0.4%
Harrisburg-Carlisle-Lebanon, PA CSA -- 656,781 -- 629,401 -- 4.3%
Portland-Lewiston-South Portland, ME CSA -- 619,917 -- 591,361 -- 4.8%
York-Hanover-Gettysburg, PA CSA -- 521,828 -- 473,043 -- 10.3%
Lancaster, PA MSA -- 498,465 -- 470,658 -- 5.9%
Atlantic City-Hammonton, NJ MSA -- 270,644 -- 252,552 -- 7.2%
Norwich-New London, CT MSA -- 267,376 -- 259,088 -- 3.2%
Barnstable Town, MA MSA -- 222,175 -- 222,230 -- 0.0%
East Stroudsburg, PA µSA -- 164,722 -- 138,687 -- 18.8%
Pottsville, PA μSA -- 147,269 -- 150,336 -- -2.0%
Ocean City, NJ MSA -- 96,422 -- 102,326 -- -5.8%
Total -- 50,324,307 -- 48,408,161 -- 4.0%
Distances
Boston/New York -- 346 km / 215 mi
New York/Philadelphia -- 153 km / 95 mi
Philadelphia/Baltimore -- 159 km / 99 mi
Baltimore/Washington -- 61 km / 38 mi_

Who agree and who disagree? You see, but without pre-conditions like: I just accept "Bos-Wash" if you accept "Blue Banana". It's not a competition, let's act like adults.

And other thing don't say something like: "Cairo-Alexandria -- 60 million people". Let's provide more details about the subdivisions, and please, with official sources.


----------



## hudkina

I've never been to the moon, but I have pretty good idea of what it is and what it consists of. You have not been to every neighborhood in every city in Europe. If you have, then you would realize just how much sprawling "suburban" development there is outside the major European cities. Even if it's not the same thing as how you in particular imagine American suburbs, they are what they are.



Anderson Geimz said:


> LIE...


Really?










The orange area represents 141 individual urbanized areas that combined form the Northeast Megalopolis. You could argue over what should and shouldn't be included, but any way you cut it, the number is still close to 45 million people.

Here is the population and land area of the 141 urbanized area shown on the map above: (the data is from 2000, so the numbers have increased since then.)



Code:


New York--Newark, NY--NJ--CT Urbanized Area		17,799,861	 3,352.60 mi²
Philadelphia, PA--NJ--DE--MD Urbanized Area		 5,149,079	 1,799.51 mi²
Boston, MA--NH--RI Urbanized Area			 4,032,484	 1,736.18 mi²
Washington, DC--VA--MD Urbanized Area			 3,933,920	 1,156.77 mi²
Baltimore, MD Urbanized Area				 2,076,354	   682.73 mi²
Providence, RI--MA Urbanized Area			 1,174,548	   503.63 mi²
Bridgeport--Stamford, CT--NY Urbanized Area		   888,890	   465.31 mi²
Hartford, CT Urbanized Area				   851,535	   469.34 mi²
Allentown--Bethlehem, PA--NJ Urbanized Area		   576,408	   289.50 mi²
Springfield, MA--CT Urbanized Area			   573,610	   308.98 mi²
New Haven, CT Urbanized Area				   531,314	   285.31 mi²
Worcester, MA--CT Urbanized Area			   429,882	   250.32 mi²
Harrisburg, PA Urbanized Area				   362,782	   208.39 mi²
Poughkeepsie--Newburgh, NY Urbanized Area		   351,982	   264.99 mi²
Lancaster, PA Urbanized Area				   323,554	   199.43 mi²
Trenton, NJ Urbanized Area				   268,472	    92.12 mi²
Barnstable Town, MA Urbanized Area			   243,667	   286.15 mi²
Reading, PA Urbanized Area				   240,264	   100.65 mi²
Atlantic City, NJ Urbanized Area			   227,180	   120.86 mi²
Nashua, NH--MA Urbanized Area				   197,155	   137.70 mi²
York, PA Urbanized Area					   192,903	   118.58 mi²
Waterbury, CT Urbanized Area				   189,026	    97.88 mi²
Aberdeen--Havre de Grace--Bel Air, MD Urbanized Area	   174,598	   102.05 mi²
Norwich--New London, CT Urbanized Area			   173,160	   123.04 mi²
Danbury, CT--NY Urbanized Area				   154,455	   123.57 mi²
New Bedford, MA Urbanized Area				   146,730	    62.52 mi²
Manchester, NH Urbanized Area				   143,549	    71.06 mi²
Hagerstown, MD--WV--PA Urbanized Area			   120,326	    76.72 mi²
Frederick, MD Urbanized Area				   119,144	    78.64 mi²
Leominster--Fitchburg, MA Urbanized Area		   112,943	    62.64 mi²
Fredericksburg, VA Urbanized Area			    97,102	    65.35 mi²
Vineland, NJ Urbanized Area				    88,724	    61.58 mi²
Dover--Rochester, NH--ME Urbanized Area			    80,456	    63.52 mi²
St. Charles, MD Urbanized Area				    74,765	    46.20 mi²
Pottstown, PA Urbanized Area				    73,597	    54.97 mi²
Hightstown, NJ Urbanized Area				    69,977	    29.92 mi²
Westminster, MD Urbanized Area				    65,034	    53.43 mi²
Lebanon, PA Urbanized Area				    63,681	    29.82 mi²
Winchester, VA Urbanized Area				    53,559	    33.14 mi²
Kingston, NY Urbanized Area				    53,458	    33.66 mi²
Wildwood--North Wildwood--Cape May, NJ Urbanized Area	    52,550	    38.77 mi²
Portsmouth, NH--ME Urbanized Area			    50,912	    42.92 mi²
Middletown, NY Urbanized Area				    50,071	    28.18 mi²
Hanover, PA Urban Cluster				    48,696	    26.71 mi²
Concord, NH Urban Cluster				    46,449	    33.32 mi²
Chesapeake Ranch Estates-Drum Point, MD Urban Cluster	    43,196	    35.02 mi²
Amherst, MA Urban Cluster				    41,387	    27.30 mi²
Browns Mills, NJ Urban Cluster				    40,882	    31.22 mi²
East Stroudsburg, PA Urban Cluster			    40,664	    40.63 mi²
Chambersburg, PA Urban Cluster				    37,872	    27.33 mi²
Carlisle, PA Urban Cluster				    37,695	    20.51 mi²
Bridgeton, NJ Urban Cluster				    35,787	    20.19 mi²
Torrington, CT Urban Cluster				    34,412	    19.35 mi²
Franklin, NJ Urban Cluster				    32,151	    27.28 mi²
Westerly, RI--CT Urban Cluster				    29,937	    23.20 mi²
Elizabethtown, PA Urban Cluster				    22,481	    18.07 mi²
Waynesboro, PA--MD Urban Cluster			    22,140	    18.41 mi²
Willimantic, CT Urban Cluster				    21,745	    10.80 mi²
Riverhead, NY Urban Cluster				    21,315	    19.23 mi²
Storrs, CT Urban Cluster				    20,490	    20.84 mi²
Danielson, CT Urban Cluster				    19,890	    19.90 mi²
Chesapeake Beach, MD Urban Cluster			    19,429	    25.31 mi²
Washington, NJ Urban Cluster				    16,251	    14.70 mi²
Warwick, NY--NJ Urban Cluster				    16,035	    14.07 mi²
Gettysburg, PA Urban Cluster				    15,532	    11.59 mi²
Goshen, NY Urban Cluster				    15,183	    10.83 mi²
Warrenton, VA Urban Cluster				    15,135	    15.20 mi²
New Freedom--Shrewsbury, PA--MD Urban Cluster		    13,370	    11.07 mi²
Shippensburg, PA Urban Cluster				    12,832	     7.27 mi²
Brodheadsville, PA Urban Cluster			    12,054	    18.58 mi²
Hampstead--Manchester, MD Urban Cluster			    11,551	     8.57 mi²
Oxford, PA Urban Cluster				    11,219	    13.20 mi²
New Paltz, NY Urban Cluster				    10,751	     9.18 mi²
Corporation of Ranson--Charles Town, WV Urban Cluster	    10,506	     5.76 mi²
Hammonton, NJ Urban Cluster				    10,183	     6.72 mi²
Shady Side, MD Urban Cluster				    10,018	     9.71 mi²
Mount Airy, MD Urban Cluster				     9,593	     8.08 mi²
Springs, NY Urban Cluster				     9,513	     9.79 mi²
Ware, MA Urban Cluster					     9,482	    10.04 mi²
Newmarket, NH Urban Cluster				     9,356	     8.78 mi²
Lake Pocotopaug, CT Urban Cluster			     9,228	     7.55 mi²
Hamburg, PA Urban Cluster				     9,181	     4.98 mi²
Mount Pocono, PA Urban Cluster				     8,742	     8.80 mi²
Kutztown, PA Urban Cluster				     8,652	     4.35 mi²
Lambertville, NJ--PA Urban Cluster			     8,565	     4.44 mi²
North East, MD Urban Cluster				     8,506	     7.13 mi²
Jefferson township (Morris County), NJ Urban Cluster	     8,475	     4.86 mi²
Southold, NY Urban Cluster				     8,177	     8.95 mi²
York Harbor, ME Urban Cluster				     8,086	     9.08 mi²
Winsted, CT Urban Cluster				     7,999	     5.02 mi²
Pepperell, MA Urban Cluster				     7,904	     8.68 mi²
Inwood, WV Urban Cluster				     7,784	    10.73 mi²
La Plata, MD Urban Cluster				     7,761	     8.79 mi²
Montgomery--Maybrook, NY Urban Cluster			     7,347	     3.89 mi²
Colchester, CT Urban Cluster				     7,198	     7.95 mi²
Highland Mills, NY Urban Cluster			     7,127	     4.78 mi²
Raymond, NH Urban Cluster				     6,751	     7.18 mi²
Salem, NJ Urban Cluster					     6,555	     3.20 mi²
Atglen, PA Urban Cluster				     6,553	     9.56 mi²
Brunswick, MD--VA Urban Cluster				     6,441	     5.12 mi²
Thurmont, MD Urban Cluster				     6,405	     3.85 mi²
Wilderness, VA Urban Cluster				     6,391	     5.18 mi²
Purcellville, VA Urban Cluster				     6,303	     4.89 mi²
Coolbaugh township, PA Urban Cluster			     6,182	     3.80 mi²
Stafford, CT--MA Urban Cluster				     5,937	     6.32 mi²
Mattituck, NY Urban Cluster				     5,932	     8.19 mi²
Egg Harbor City, NJ Urban Cluster			     5,797	     3.48 mi²
Red Hook, NY Urban Cluster				     5,770	     6.60 mi²
Quarryville, PA Urban Cluster				     5,749	     7.39 mi²
Calvert Beach-Long Beach, MD Urban Cluster		     5,700	     5.52 mi²
Greencastle, PA Urban Cluster				     5,397	     4.13 mi²
Golden Beach, MD Urban Cluster				     5,225	     5.96 mi²
Taneytown, MD Urban Cluster				     5,102	     2.01 mi²
Littlestown, PA Urban Cluster				     5,083	     2.74 mi²
Sag Harbor, NY Urban Cluster				     5,074	     4.53 mi²
Plainfield, CT Urban Cluster				     4,818	     6.09 mi²
Poolesville, MD Urban Cluster				     4,740	     1.89 mi²
Sussex, NJ Urban Cluster				     4,676	     3.08 mi²
North Brookfield, MA Urban Cluster			     4,473	     3.67 mi²
Emmitsburg, MD--PA Urban Cluster			     4,386	     2.01 mi²
Ross township (Monroe County), PA Urban Cluster		     4,186	     5.79 mi²
Stewartstown, PA Urban Cluster				     3,980	     2.60 mi²
Woodstown, NJ Urban Cluster				     3,935	     2.49 mi²
West Hurley, NY Urban Cluster				     3,795	     4.39 mi²
Laurel Lake, NJ Urban Cluster				     3,674	     2.34 mi²
Rising Sun, MD Urban Cluster				     3,541	     3.11 mi²
Jim Thorpe, PA Urban Cluster				     3,467	     1.04 mi²
Maurice River township, NJ Urban Cluster		     3,447	     3.63 mi²
Cold Spring, NY Urban Cluster				     3,422	     3.16 mi²
Boonsboro, MD Urban Cluster				     3,412	     2.35 mi²
Topton, PA Urban Cluster				     3,364	     1.55 mi²
Richland, PA Urban Cluster				     3,360	     3.67 mi²
Rhinebeck, NY Urban Cluster				     3,117	     1.63 mi²
Belvidere, NJ--PA Urban Cluster				     3,058	     1.64 mi²
Charlestown town, RI Urban Cluster			     3,013	     3.70 mi²
Lehman township (Pike County), PA Urban Cluster		     3,013	     3.85 mi²
Berryville, VA Urban Cluster				     2,973	     1.48 mi²
Shepherdstown, WV Urban Cluster				     2,972	     1.85 mi²
West Brookfield, MA Urban Cluster			     2,824	     2.36 mi²
Dublin, PA Urban Cluster				     2,792	     0.89 mi²
Pawling, NY Urban Cluster				     2,545	     1.52 mi²
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL							43,804,905	15,147.76 mi²

I love how when you don't know the truth your argument is always "well, you've never been here" or some other non-response. Why not do a little studying before you post?


----------



## Anderson Geimz

That area is almost 4 times the Netherlands, not "smaller than the Netherlands" as you claimed.

You have no idea what the moon looks like up close either...


----------



## Anderson Geimz

Xusein said:


> The Netherlands is a bit less than twice the size of New Jersey, I think.


Correct.
Keep in mind that 20% of the Netherlands is water that also gets counted (including that big fresh water lake in the middle).
So it's actually more like 32,000 sq km vs 22,000 sq km.


----------



## CityPolice

hudkina said:


> If you're basing your opinion on that map, keep in mind it covers an area of several thousand square miles. You can barely see most of the larger city parks, let alone the local neighborhood parks. Southern California probably has thousands of parks ranging from tiny little neighborhood playfields to the massive Angeles National Forest at over 1,000 sq. mi. in area. (That's nearly as large as the state of Rhode Island.) One of Los Angeles' most famous parks is Griffith park a 4,200 acre urban park just north of Downtown L.A.


Not to disrespect LA or start any battles but LA, according a resource, barely uses its land for parks or open spaces. NYC is smaller in land and still uses more space for parks and opens spaces, with 2x the people. Plus were adding more parks.


----------



## hudkina

LOL. If they are to the same scale, then why is the Netherlands smaller than the state of New Jersey on the map? And I'm curious as to what the scale of that map is... I created it. I know what it is. You obviously don't...

Again. The 141 urban areas which make up the orange globs on that map have a combined area of 15,147.76 sq. mi. If the globs were arranged in a certain way, they could fit into an area smaller than that taken up by the Netherlands. That's ALL I'm saying.

Also, you don't even have the slightest clue what a "CSA" is, do you? They aren't just arbitrarily chosen based on what will make "my" city bigger than "your" city. They follow a well-defined set of rules. Again, just because two cities are in close proximity doesn't automatically mean they're going to form a CSA, especially when they become larger. San Diego is adjacent to Los Angeles, but that doesn't mean the two will ever form a CSA.


And really, my point with Los Angeles is that people often look at the area of the CSA and see that it covers a ridiculous amount of land, and then say "hey, if Los Angeles can be so big, then I'll include 'x' amount of land around my city!" That's not how things work. In the U.S. MSAs are defined using counties, and it just so happens that the counties in Southern California happen to be big.

You can argue that the "shotgun" approach to urbanity in Europe often makes cities smaller than the areas they serve, but you are certainly overstating the "blast" area.

For example, the core of the London urban area has some 8+ million people straddling three "regions": Greater London, East of England, and South East England. The three regions have a combined population of over 20 million people in an area less than half the size of the Los Angeles CSA. (15,000+ sq. mi. to 34,000 sq. mi.) That doesn't mean that that the people in that 15,000+ sq. mi. area would consider themselves "Londoners", and it certainly doesn't mean the three regions would be the equivalent to an American "CSA". It also doesn't mean that Brighton or Margate or Portsmouth or Ipswich would or should be considered a part of London's urban core. In reality using American methods, London's urbanized area probably wouldn't have much more than 10 milion people, with a metropolitan area no more than 12 million.


----------



## Anderson Geimz

No, I don't know what a CSA is...:| Read back the thread...

Also, use your eyes, the Netherlands is not smaller in that map! Geesh! btw The Netherlands without water is 32,000 sq km, so no the orange parts would not fit even.

Los Angeles does cover a ridiculous amount of land! It's the world's 2nd or 3rd largest city in area!! It's furthest "parts" are over 100 km from downtown LA!

London's CSA is 18 million. It has been calculated using the US Census method. Live with it...
It's also a bigger city than LA, almost in any way of measuring.

And now I'm done here. This thread is insufferable and you are insufferable...:|


----------



## hudkina

Where is this supposed London CSA? And using what data? You can't just post claims like that without an supporting information...


----------



## Anderson Geimz

hudkina said:


> Where is this supposed London CSA? And using what data? You can't just post claims like that without an supporting information...


Go back 5 years on the forum. There you will find the calculation. Or you're welcome to do it yourself.


----------



## foadi

seriously? anderson, you cant expect people to take you seriously if you make posts like that. he asked you a simple and valid question. and look, this isn't just everyone teaming up on you; i agree with you on the netherlands/northeast megalopolis size comparison. hundreds of semi-connected urban areas that branch off in a million different directions should not be compared with a country. but what you're doing is silly. just answer the question. i'm genuinely curious.


----------



## Küsel

Anderson Geimz said:


> I don't have an inferiority complex, just a taste for fairness and reality...
> 
> 
> 
> Hudkina's reasoning:
> 
> City A: Wow look at that great dense city of 17 million. It only occupies 2,500 sq m!
> 
> City B: That's a city of 8 million, much smaller than city A. Oh you're saying that we should count it's suburbs too? But it's crazy to just include everything that happens to be within 10,000 sq m! In any case, City A is much more dense!


Density is not a main urban factor anymore. Time-distances are much more important nowadays than space-distance and density. Especially in Europe. Boswash may be 42mio. But it is the same corridor as Amsterdam-Geneva (part of Blue Banana) and there live a little bit more people in that area (just to calculate Randstad, Rhein-Ruhr, Rhein-Main, Regio Basiliensis and the Swiss Midlands and all the areas inbetween). Thanks to high-speed railways and motorways distances decresed enormously in the last 20 years. It's one big urban society.

Another example: There was once an exhibition "City Switzerland". Okay the whole country only has as much inhabitants as the city of New York. Anyway they calculated avarage time distances and found out that you can anyway compare the two. The periurban and suburban western European areas are also defined by a much more "urban lifestyle" as most of the neighbourhoods of big cities in the US. Every American tourist to Europe (and vice versa) can tell how "small cities" here are much more alive and urban than 90% of all the big towns between NY and LA. It has not only to do with density but also with the morphology and natural growing together of old smaller, medium and bigger centers over the centuries (New Towns excluded).


----------



## Anderson Geimz

foadi said:


> seriously? anderson, you cant expect people to take you seriously if you make posts like that. he asked you a simple and valid question. and look, this isn't just everyone teaming up on you; i agree with you on the netherlands/northeast megalopolis size comparison. hundreds of semi-connected urban areas that branch off in a million different directions should not be compared with a country. but what you're doing is silly. just answer the question. i'm genuinely curious.


So you expect me to spend hours and hours to calculate and post something what has been general knowledge on this forum for the past five years, so that hudkina can just dismiss it on a bullshit technicality or something?
We've had numerous people like him before, not interested in the numbers behind it all, but just shitting on other cities.

I've got nothing against LA or the NE Megalopolis. hudkina on the other hand has spend this whole thread trying to convince people either that the Blue Banana doesn't exist or that various European cities are not as big as they are. Pretty rich with the overly general standards American cities use to justify their size.
Mind you, the guy has never even set foot on this continent (I traveled the NE Megalopolis extensively).

Just admitting that the urban structure of the Blue Banana or London or Paris is different from the NE Megalopolis or LA is fine by me. hudkina seems only interested in downplaying it because it doesn't contain low density sprawl as much (which only makes European cities more urban, not less!)


----------



## Anderson Geimz

Küsel said:


> Density is not a main urban factor anymore. Time-distances are much more important nowadays than space-distance and density. Especially in Europe. Boswash may be 42mio. But it is the same corridor as Amsterdam-Geneva (part of Blue Banana) and there live a little bit more people in that area (just to calculate Randstad, Rhein-Ruhr, Rhein-Main, Regio Basiliensis and the Swiss Midlands and all the areas inbetween). Thanks to high-speed railways and motorways distances decresed enormously in the last 20 years. It's one big urban society.
> 
> Another example: There was once an exhibition "City Switzerland". Okay the whole country only has as much inhabitants as the city of New York. Anyway they calculated avarage time distances and found out that you can anyway compare the two. The periurban and suburban western European areas are also defined by a much more "urban lifestyle" as most of the neighbourhoods of big cities in the US. Every American tourist to Europe (and vice versa) can tell how "small cities" here are much more alive and urban than 90% of all the big towns between NY and LA. It has not only to do with density but also with the morphology and natural growing together of old smaller, medium and bigger centers over the centuries (New Towns excluded).


hudkina will deny this because he has Google Earth.


----------



## Küsel

And I am in urban studies and cartographer, so I have my armour :lol:


----------



## hudkina

I've never denied the "Rhine Valley" area between "Amsterdam and Zurich" is a megalopolis. In fact, I've clearly agreed that it IS a megalopolis. What I said was that it's a huge stretch for a megalopolis to cross oceans and mountains and include northern Italy and Great Britain. Saying the Blue Banana (as it is often defined) is a "megalopolis" comparable to (and in turn larger than) the Northeast Megalopolis is silly. They are two completely different things. The Northeast Megalopolis is less than 500 miles from end to end. If you want to call the "Blue Banana" the 600 mile long curve of urban development stretching from the Randstad-Rhine/Ruhr-Frankfurt-Mannheim-Stuttgart-Strasbourg-Basel-Zurich-Bern-Geneva, then I'll say the "Blue Banana" is a megalopolis. But I'll disagree if we start crossing oceans and mountains.

Also, I'm not attacking European cities. I'm just saying they have SUBURBAN neighborhoods that SPRAWL well outside their traditional historic cores. You're the one who thinks that such a thing is an attack. Are they as "low-density" and "sprawly" as the newest American suburbs? No. But they are "suburban" by just about any definition of the word. And yes, you can always look to the small medieval villages and dense transit-oriented suburban nodes as the exception, but that doesn't mean that you won't find the newer post-war suburban neighborhoods. I'm not sure why the European forumers so steadfastly deny this. It's not like I'm saying all of Europe is suburban. In fact, I'll be the first to admit that Europeans have done a GREAT job with urban-planning and land-use compared to most American cities.

Lastly, you're the one dismissing the Los Angeles urban core and Northeast Megalopolis on "technicalities". You claimed them to be a "lie" and a "twist of reality". I've shown you otherwise. In fact the only "twist of reality" is the map you created with the Netherlands supposedly to scale with the map I created, yet somehow smaller than the state of New Jersey. Sure the footprint of the Netherlands wasn't the best comparison. (I guess some people didn't understand what I was saying.) But my point is that the Northeast Megalopolis isn't some MASSIVE 1,200 mile stretch of land crossing oceans and mountains. The urban structure is relatively compact for its population and covers a relatively small footprint.


----------



## Azia

*...*

i think we will probaly see some megalopolises merged together like LA-SAn diego tijuana / Tokyo -Nagoya-Osaka and the boshwash ,there must more than 60 million people in thies hypercities


----------



## LtBk

Some European cities do have American style suburbia sprawl like Copenhagen and Paris, but its not on a big scale like those in the US.


----------



## Küsel

And they still have kind of historical centers because even those suburbs existed as towns or villages BEFORE suburbanization started. That's why they still have some identity.


----------



## Azia

*i think..*

i think that Sacramento /- Bay area and the corridor Osaka-Tokyo can all build up in a few years (eg 2040) is that a good prognose??!!

LA and san diego can not... because there is camp pendleton in between

Prognosis of population Tokyo-Osaka 2040 50 million 

bay area 2040 12-14 million


----------



## Manila-X

Azia said:


> i think that Sacramento /- Bay area and the corridor Osaka-Tokyo can all build up in a few years (eg 2040) is that a good prognose??!!
> 
> LA and san diego can not... because there is camp pendleton in between
> 
> Prognosis of population Tokyo-Osaka 2040 50 million
> 
> bay area 2040 12-14 million


There is a small possibility that The Bay Area can exceed LA both in area and population.


----------



## Azia

*Bay area -LA??*

it is really possible that bay area can reached LA in population,look LA has 18 million people ion metro ..


----------



## SouthmoreAvenue

Küsel said:


> Exactly - as is Dallas-Fort Worth. To SA or Houston you drive half a day to a day through endless woods and fields and only meet some small towns. Well to San Antonio at least you can pass by Waco or Austin but inbetween is not really a lot...


Since when is a trip from Dallas to Houston half a day or a day?
The only time that will happen is when Houston evacuates from a hurricane...

According to Mapquest, the driving distance is 240 miles, taking about 3 hours and 41 minutes. 

I think thats a slight understatement, the avg time is 4 hours...


----------



## Chrissib

Azia said:


> it is really possible that bay area can reached LA in population,look LA has 18 million people ion metro ..


No way, the bay area is smaller and is also growing slower. It also has not as much space as LA.


----------



## bosman

Azia said:


> i think that Sacramento /- Bay area and the corridor Osaka-Tokyo can all build up in a few years (eg 2040) is that a good prognose??!!
> 
> LA and san diego can not... because there is camp pendleton in between
> 
> Prognosis of population Tokyo-Osaka 2040 50 million
> 
> bay area 2040 12-14 million


While Camp Pendleton is the only reason the San Diego and LA region haven't grown together along the coast, I still think they've essentially grown together a bit more inland, along Interstate 15. That area has cities like Fallbrook (pop. 30,000), Temecula (pop. 95,000), Murrieta (pop. 100,000) and Lake Elsinore (pop. 50,000) that have pretty much created a continuous urban area from the northern San Diego suburbs into the San Bernardino/Riverside area. If that were ever to be accepted, that would create a combined urban area of almost 20 million (LA and SD). Of course, if you include Tijuana, Mexico as well, that would be over 22 million?


----------



## the spliff fairy

just a satellite of London, with urban areas artifically highlighted (most of it will show up as green otherwise). Basically thanks to the greenbelt laws what you get are dense settlements surrounded by belts of countryside - in short a high density peppering rather than a low density contiguous sprawl.


----------



## xXFallenXx

bosman said:


> While Camp Pendleton is the only reason the San Diego and LA region haven't grown together along the coast, I still think they've essentially grown together a bit more inland, along Interstate 15. That area has cities like Fallbrook (pop. 30,000), Temecula (pop. 95,000), Murrieta (pop. 100,000) and Lake Elsinore (pop. 50,000) that have pretty much created a continuous urban area from the northern San Diego suburbs into the San Bernardino/Riverside area. If that were ever to be accepted, that would create a combined urban area of almost 20 million (LA and SD). Of course, if you include Tijuana, Mexico as well, that would be over 22 million?


even if the whole inland empire grows to the point it is a solid urban area, there is still 20-25 miles between Temecula and Escondido that wont ever become significantly urbanized due to it's mountainous terrain.


----------



## Chrissib

Isn't London more mid-density housing?


----------



## PragmaticIdealist

San Diego and Los Angeles do function as distinct urban cores. 

The 199-year-old San Bernardino used to exist as an urban core before the advent of the freeways, especially when the municipality served as the eastern nexus of the Pacific Electric Railway. So, as oil prices rise and as traffic congestion becomes more of a problem, the Inland Empire will need to re-establish San Bernardino as a transit-oriented urban core surrounded by the smaller urban centers of Riverside and Ontario. 

Riverside has the advantage of having an authentic urban fabric, but the municipality lacks available land, especially in the city center. Ontario has the land, but that city lacks the existing density, infrastructure, and authenticity. 

San Bernardino is in the unique position of having density, authenticity, and infrastructure, as well as copious amounts of prime developable land within and immediately adjacent to the city center. So, that municipality is now embarking on a laudable repositioning strategy to extricate itself from the shadow of Los Angeles and to enable the Inland Empire to function independently, especially as another million residents are added to the San Bernardino Valley within the next decade. And, as has been mentioned, the Inland Empire already contains a population of four million.

While the observation that many of the borders between the cities in southern California bleed together is mostly true, to say that all of these municipalities lack real centers is not. Many older cities in southern California have been forced into suburbia by their proximity to Los Angeles, but they still retain their traditional urban character. And, the multitude of these places is one of the aspects that makes southern California so impressive. 

The places to visit in the region are nearly inexhaustible. And, there's urbanity in almost every direction.


----------



## bosman

xXFallenXx said:


> even if the whole inland empire grows to the point it is a solid urban area, there is still 20-25 miles between Temecula and Escondido that wont ever become significantly urbanized due to it's mountainous terrain.


Maybe right along Interstate 15, but what about Fallbrook? It seems like the distance between Vista and Fallbrook and Fallbrook to Temecula where there isn't much development is only a few miles in each case. Granted, Fallbrook isn't particularly known as a real urban city, but there's 30,000 or so people living there. But then again, you live near there, so I guess you would know (although I've driven through there in the past)...


----------



## klamedia

PragmaticIdealist said:


> While the observation that many of the borders between the cities in southern California bleed together is mostly true, to say that all of these municipalities lack real centers is not. Many older cities in southern California have been forced into suburbia by their proximity to Los Angeles, but they still retain their traditional urban character. And, the multitude of these places is one of the aspects that makes southern California so impressive.
> 
> The places to visit in the region are nearly inexhaustible. And, there's urbanity in almost every direction.


Interesting approach to the LA CSA. I've always wondered why folks always when identifying "Los Angeles" as so big they don't include just the city limits(which is only 469 sq miles a mid sized modern city) but when mentioning NYC they only refer to the "city" and usually that means only Manhattan which makes the comparison lopsided at best. Is the difference that NYC has a very interesting city centre while the all the "weak" suburbs pay homage to this center? Where LA has a somewhat "weak" center(not very strong) but the surrounding areas like Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Pasadena, Anaheim/Disneyland even Hollywood are enormously gravitating? Thoughts?


----------



## bayviews

Azia said:


> it is really possible that bay area can reached LA in population,look LA has 18 million people ion metro ..



No, not likely & probably not desirable!

However, the Bay Area metro is slowly but surely expanding into a Northern California megaregion co-anchored by San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, & Sacramento. 

Current projections suggest that the NorCal megaregion will grow to 24 million by 2050, an increase of 10 million.


----------



## philadweller

I think the topography of California has caused the major cities to be separated from the start. The San Francisco Bay is a distinction for California. Bays are rare in California and that is a natural point for a city to form. The East Coast has so many cities close to one another because it was settled first and because there is more navigable water (numerous rivers and bays) and less extreme topography for early building technology. This is why there is the BosWash megalopolis. 

San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose forms a mini megalopolis. So does Los Angeles, Pasadena, Glendale, Anaheim and Long Beach.


----------



## Chrissib

klamedia said:


> Interesting approach to the LA CSA. I've always wondered why folks always when identifying "Los Angeles" as so big they don't include just the city limits(which is only 469 sq miles a mid sized modern city) but when mentioning NYC they only refer to the "city" and usually that means only Manhattan which makes the comparison lopsided at best. Is the difference that NYC has a very interesting city centre while the all the "weak" suburbs pay homage to this center? Where LA has a somewhat "weak" center(not very strong) but the surrounding areas like Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Pasadena, Anaheim/Disneyland even Hollywood are enormously gravitating? Thoughts?


Maybe it's the shape of LA. It has a very irregular border, with many corridors. The area of NYC is well shaped, it's often separated from it's suburbs by sea, and the borders are more 'natural'.


----------



## PragmaticIdealist

klamedia said:


> Interesting approach to the LA CSA. I've always wondered why folks always when identifying "Los Angeles" as so big they don't include just the city limits(which is only 469 sq miles a mid sized modern city) but when mentioning NYC they only refer to the "city" and usually that means only Manhattan which makes the comparison lopsided at best. Is the difference that NYC has a very interesting city centre while the all the "weak" suburbs pay homage to this center? Where LA has a somewhat "weak" center(not very strong) but the surrounding areas like Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Pasadena, Anaheim/Disneyland even Hollywood are enormously gravitating? Thoughts?


That observation is interesting, too, and it's probably right.

Los Angeles also doesn't have very many people living in its center, yet.


----------



## Azia

*re*



bayviews said:


> No, not likely & probably not desirable!
> 
> However, the Bay Area metro is slowly but surely expanding into a Northern California megaregion co-anchored by San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, & Sacramento.
> 
> Current projections suggest that the NorCal megaregion will grow to 24 million by 2050, an increase of 10 million.


what the hell real 24 million by 2050?? i think than la must hit 30 million by 2050..

anywhere here can post a map of the urban area of la - san diego in 2050 ?? .....


----------



## Azia

*re*

thats my prognose for the future40 yeras from now:Tokyo-Osaka 70 mill
Sandiego tijuana la 30 mill

NYC boswash 80 mill

pearl delta 100 million

chicago milwaukee 16 mill

rhine mine 6 mill

rhine ruhr 12 mill

sao paulo 28 mill

.......


----------



## Azia

*re*



Don Omar said:


> The first article posted on this thread mentioned using satellite images to understand what makes up these Megalopolis.
> 
> Well here is Bos-Wash, I think the best example of a megalopolis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> with city names
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> here is Chi-Pitt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't see a well defined linkage between the Midwestern cities. Definitely between Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus and Cleveland, Pittsburgh but there is no clear connection.
> 
> However Milwaukee and Chicago are coming together as one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and the San-San megalopolis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not as strong connection as Bos-Wash but still a correlation.
> 
> more later


interesting and stuning night pictures is there a possibality that the san san corridor and the tokyo -osaka corridor can merged togeter to two super big cities in the future , one is in california the other in japan ..


----------



## dnobsemajdnob

The NY-Philadelphia area is amazing.

It seems to be almost as big as London. That's pretty impressive considering that London is a 6,000 year old city, and NY is like 150 years old.

It's still smaller than the Blue Banana though.


----------



## foadi

dnobsemajdnob said:


> The NY-Philadelphia area is amazing.
> 
> It seems to be almost as big as London. That's pretty impressive considering that London is a 6,000 year old city, and NY is like 150 years old.


New York itself is bigger than London.


----------



## SASH

^^
It isn't! 
NYC is 800 km2
London is 1579 km2


----------



## Anderson Geimz




----------



## dnobsemajdnob

SASH SCF said:


> ^^
> It isn't!
> NYC is 800 km2
> London is 1579 km2


I think that he meant population -- not land area.

Nonetheless, when viewed by the American population model, London has about 80 million people versus 12 million in NY/NJ/CT/PA. Also, since London is part of the Blue Banana, it's part of a metro area (by US standards) of about 400 million people, and therefore, is about 11 times bigger than Tokyo!


----------



## _00_deathscar

London has 80 million people?


----------



## Joop20

dnobsemajdnob said:


> I think that he meant population -- not land area.
> 
> Nonetheless, when viewed by the American population model, London has about 80 million people versus 12 million in NY/NJ/CT/PA. Also, since London is part of the Blue Banana, it's part of a metro area (by US standards) of about 400 million people, and therefore, is about 11 times bigger than Tokyo!


LOL England itself has a population of 50 million, so how can London have a population of 80 million? And the blue banana is a pretty useless concept, since it is a VERY discontinuous urban area, much unline BosWash


----------



## Anderson Geimz

Joop20 said:


> And the blue banana is a pretty useless concept, since it is a VERY discontinuous urban area, much unline BosWash


What does urban area have to do with the concept of megalopoli?


----------



## Joop20

dnobsemajdnob said:


> I agree with you, Anderson. The Americans have to think that they are the biggest and the best. They are insecure and jealous of the EU (and now of Asia too), so they make up these fictitious "metros" that are like 800 km across and say that NY has 12 m people living in it. Big deal, there are 12 m people in 40 km from the city centre of London, Paris, Milan, etc. Then, they make up this Bosh-Wash thing to rival the Blue Banana.
> 
> I had enough of them when I lived there. They always derided my Canadian home.
> 
> They ignore the 6,000 years of civilization in the EU. As I said, for thousands of years, there have been museums, symphonies and universal health care in the EU, and the Americans respond that their cities are the biggest. Well -- they are not!



I shouldn't even be replying to this crap, but I have rarely seen a post with more nonsense in it on SSC then this one :banana: Stop putting us Europeans to shame, and make some constructive posts. 6,000 years of civilization have nothing to do with the size of a city, nor does health care. Americans can't help it that their population has a much higher growing rate than Europe, and that their cities have boomed over the past 100 years. Who cares that NY is bigger than Paris or London anyway? They're all great cities... 

For those of you who are actually interested in the concept of Megalopolisses, try this article on Megaregions by Richard Florida, pretty interesting:

http://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/userfiles/prosperity/File/Rise.of. the.Mega-Regions.w.cover.pdf


----------



## Joop20

Anderson Geimz said:


> What does urban area have to do with the concept of megalopoli?


Since I consider a megalopolis as a chain of relatively continuous urban areas, it's pretty relevant I'd say? A concept like the Blue Banana that includes the whole of Switzerland into one big urban area has no meaning to me.


----------



## dnobsemajdnob

Joop20 said:


> ... 6,000 years of civilization have nothing to do with the size of a city, nor does health care....


Do you seriously dispute the fact that -- because London and other cities were booming civilizations as early as 6,000 years ago -- that it's impossible that they can't be bigger and more civilized than upstarts like NY and LA? I think that to make up for their shortcomings the US makes up these fake MSAs. Anderson can prove it.

PS: Healthcare matters. It has been proven that Europe's universal access to health care for thousands of years has lead to its population growth.


----------



## foadi

london isn't 6000 years old.


----------



## Anderson Geimz

That sure is a strange fellow...:sly:

"Universal healthcare for thousands of years"?

Why do you all keep replying to him...
Surely he's taking the piss...


----------



## Anderson Geimz

Joop20 said:


> Since I consider a megalopolis as a chain of relatively continuous urban areas, it's pretty relevant I'd say? A concept like the Blue Banana that includes the whole of Switzerland into one big urban area has no meaning to me.


So you're one of "those people"?  (believing that that which has meaning to you, is what is the rule for everyone, even people in the field).

Frankly it doesn't really matter what any of us think. The Blue Banana is a pretty accepted concept among geographers.
I also fail to see what makes Bos-Wash so different. If you've ever been there you know that it's far from a continous urban area either. US definitions of urban area are pretty lose as it is. That what you see on the map is based on densities over 1000 ppsm (granted on a neighbourhood level). Countries like England, The Netherlands and Belgium are over 1000 ppsm in their entirety! (high density close together cores with countrysides peppered with small towns).
Nevertheless, the connections exist in both places, sure there are the Alps and the Channel but the economic and infrastructural connections override the need for physical connections (physical connection don't exist in parts of Bos-Wash and other megalopoli either!)
A megalopolis is a network of close together metro areas. It's mainly an economic and demographic concept, not a morfological one.

If anybody has a better definition, I'd like to hear it. But the definition of having it to be an area of (almost) touching suburbs of >1000 ppsm would mean there is only one megalopolis on the planet (Bos-Wash) and I hope we can all agree that's bollocks.


----------



## dnobsemajdnob

Anderson Geimz said:


> That sure is a strange fellow...:sly:
> 
> "Universal healthcare for thousands of years"?
> 
> Why do you all keep replying to him...
> Surely he's taking the piss...


:cheers:

I do love the "Blue Banana" though! :banana: (Wait, that's a yellow banana!)


----------



## hudkina

The problem is that you are trying to compare the Northeast Megalopolis and the Blue Banana as if they are relatively the same. They aren't. As has been stated before, the Blue Banana is more similar in nature to the "Rust Belt" that basically stretches from the eastern shores of Lake Ontario to the western shore of Lake Michigan. It includes cities such as Toronto, Hamilton, Buffalo, Rochester, Erie, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Toledo, Detroit, Lansing, Grand Rapids, South Bend, Chicago, Milwaukee, Madison, etc.


----------



## Anderson Geimz

hudkina said:


> The problem is that you are trying to compare the Northeast Megalopolis and the Blue Banana as if they are relatively the same. They aren't. As has been stated before, the Blue Banana is more similar in nature to the "Rust Belt" that basically stretches from the eastern shores of Lake Ontario to the western shore of Lake Michigan. It includes cities such as Toronto, Hamilton, Buffalo, Rochester, Erie, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Toledo, Detroit, Lansing, Grand Rapids, South Bend, Chicago, Milwaukee, Madison, etc.


Absolute bullshit and once again you show your fundamental misunderstanding regarding megalopoli.

London, Amsterdam, Brussels, Cologne, Dusseldorf, Frankfurt, Zurich and Milan are not the equivalents of Pittsburgh, Cincinatti, Buffalo, South Bend, Grand Rapids and Indianapolis...
They are the equivalents of New York, Washington, Philadelphia and Boston.
Both in form and in function.
The connections between the cities of the Blue Banana are much greater than the connections between the cities of the Rust Belt.


----------



## xXFallenXx

dnobsemajdnob said:


> Do you seriously dispute the fact that -- because London and other cities were booming civilizations as early as 6,000 years ago -- that it's impossible that they can't be bigger and more civilized than upstarts like NY and LA? I think that to make up for their shortcomings the US makes up these fake MSAs. Anderson can prove it.
> 
> PS: Healthcare matters. It has been proven that Europe's universal access to health care for thousands of years has lead to its population growth.


:laugh:


----------



## Shera

*Split Banana*



dnobsemajdnob said:


> :cheers:
> 
> I do love the "Blue Banana" though! :banana: (Wait, that's a yellow banana!)


LOL, but sadly, it's a banana cut in half by the English Channel.

I mean, how the heck is it interconnected? The rail tunnel under the English Channel to France that carry only 25000 passengers per day? Transportation by ferry or by plane? If by plane, then the whole world is a megalopolis with 6.9 billion people. hno:

The split banana is split in many different ways: different nations, different languages, and a massive body of water. There is perhaps at least as much interconnectivity between NYC and London as there is between London and Amsterdam or Essex, especially since both New-Yorkers and Londoners can actually communicate with each other using the same language.


----------



## Shera

The US Gov't should just sell all of the land in Camp Pendleton and move the base elsewhere! There could be billions of dollars made from selling the property for land development. A small portion could still be kept for military operations, but with so much land in the desert in SoCal/Nevada/AZ why not just use the land over there? 

Then LA and SD could combine into one massive city!


----------



## siamu maharaj

By the blue banana European standard, NYC and London were also part of the same megalopolis when the Concrode was around.


----------



## Joop20

Anderson Geimz said:


> Absolute bullshit and once again you show your fundamental misunderstanding regarding megalopoli.
> 
> London, Amsterdam, Brussels, Cologne, Dusseldorf, Frankfurt, Zurich and Milan are not the equivalents of Pittsburgh, Cincinatti, Buffalo, South Bend, Grand Rapids and Indianapolis...
> They are the equivalents of New York, Washington, Philadelphia and Boston.
> Both in form and in function.
> The connections between the cities of the Blue Banana are much greater than the connections between the cities of the Rust Belt.


I fail to see how Amsterdam and Milan are more interconnected than Grand Rapids and Toronto for example...


----------



## El Mariachi

in my opinion, the silliest part of that concept is the inclusion of both London and Milan---the two biggest cities in the "Blue Banana". As stated, London is on an island, disconnected from continent but geographically and economically. There is the chunnel and ferries, but no roads. Milan/Turin is isolated from the region by the Alps. Take a satellite view of the corridor between Zurich and Milan----its largely desolate mountain range.


----------



## siamu maharaj

El Mariachi said:


> in my opinion, the silliest part of that concept is the inclusion of both London and Milan---the two biggest cities in the "Blue Banana". As stated, London is on an island, disconnected from continent but geographically and economically. There is the chunnel and ferries, but no roads. Milan/Turin is isolated from the region by the Alps. Take a satellite view of the corridor between Zurich and Milan----its largely desolate mountain range.


You don't need to take a satellite view for that! Ask anyone whether London and Milan belong to the same megalopolis and the reply would be "WTF Mate???"`


----------



## hudkina

Anderson Geimz said:


> Absolute bullshit and once again you show your fundamental misunderstanding regarding megalopoli.
> 
> London, Amsterdam, Brussels, Cologne, Dusseldorf, Frankfurt, Zurich and Milan are not the equivalents of Pittsburgh, Cincinatti, Buffalo, South Bend, Grand Rapids and Indianapolis...
> They are the equivalents of New York, Washington, Philadelphia and Boston.
> Both in form and in function.
> The connections between the cities of the Blue Banana are much greater than the connections between the cities of the Rust Belt.


Since when has this become a discussion of relative importance? Last time I checked we were talking about the geo-politics and population distribution of certain areas of the world... Whether or not Milan is more important than Toronto is beside the point.

The fact is that the cities that make up the Blue Banana have more in common from a "megalopolis" standpoint with the Rust Belt than they do with the Northeast Megalopolis. Like the Blue Banana there are quite a few large cities in relatively close proximity, however they aren't nearly as compact as the Northeast Megalopolis, nor is the land between the major cities nearly as urbanized as the land in the Northeast Megalopolis.

There are nearly 40 million people in the stretch of land between Chicago and Toronto, with the region highly connected through the interstate and rail networks. There are over 60 major urbanized areas with populations greater than 50,000, collectively accounting for over 30 million people. The major urbanized areas are rarely more than a few miles apart with hundreds of smaller urbanized areas in the rural stretches between. BTW, the Rust Belt doesn't go as far south as Indianapolis or Columbus. It is basically the major cities along the Great Lakes shore with Pittsburgh added in. The major cities are Chicago, Toronto, Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, Buffalo, Rochester, etc. Basically the extents are Madison in the West and Rochester in the East. The two cities are about 600 miles apart.

The Rust Belt isn't nearly as large as the Blue Banana (though if you take out the U.K. it's a bit closer), but the two are very similar in nature from a population distribution and connectivity standpoint.


----------



## julesstoop

hudkina said:


> There are over 60 major urbanized areas with populations greater than 50,000, collectively accounting for over 30 million people.


The Netherlands alone would count for over half of both figures. With which I mean to say that the Blue Banana has completely different scale compared to the Rust Belt. Even if you don't include the parts over the channel and under the Alps.

By the way. When I grew up, the Blue Banana was still called the 'As van Lotharingen' (Axis of Lorraine), a 19th. century concept which linked industrialization in Europe with it's geography. This axis has historically always included Milan/Turin, And London/Midlands/Liverpool.


----------



## Shera

If anybody still wants to consider the Blue Split Banana as a megalopolis, then what is the point in that, as the megalopolises in China and India would actually look more valid because those can easily be 1-nation megalopolises?!? 

The blue banana is split in too many ways. The only thing that has helped to connect it was the Chunnel and the Euro currency, but that's pretty much it. I wish I never heard of this silly term, "blue banana". 

No, it's the split banana, for sanity's sakes!


----------



## hudkina

julesstoop said:


> The Netherlands alone would count for over half of both figures. With which I mean to say that the Blue Banana has completely different scale compared to the Rust Belt. Even if you don't include the parts over the channel and under the Alps.
> 
> By the way. When I grew up, the Blue Banana was still called the 'As van Lotharingen' (Axis of Lorraine), a 19th. century concept which linked industrialization in Europe with it's geography. This axis has historically always included Milan/Turin, And London/Midlands/Liverpool.


And that's great, but total population isn't as important as the distribution of that population. The important fact is that the Rust Belt and Blue Banana are made up of cities that are relatively close together, but aren't nearly as compact as what you'd find in the Northeast megalopolis.


----------



## julesstoop

Well, over here cities and even their conurbations are actually very compact. The Netherlands, with about 25.000 kmsq of land mostly consists of - besides the big four - quite a few (some 20) smaller (around 150 - 250.000) very compact conurbations. Take my town for example. Conurbation: some 250.000 + people on about 70 kmsq, half of them living in the city proper (municipality of Leiden) on about 23 kmsq.

If average density of conurbations were lower, most of the country could be considered as one metropolitan area of grown together conurbations. Much like the 'Vlaamse ruit' actually is.

This wouldn't change the average distribution of urban centers however. One could even easily maintain that (the general population in) urban areas in the Netherlands are even more interdependent/connected because people generally live closer to urban centers (and thus to public transportation hubs and other infrastructure).

So I pose that the granularity or 'dottedness' of a combined metro-area (megalopolis) doesn't necessarily really say a lot about how it functions.


----------



## Shera

Correct, but country borders and great barriers to infrastructure also says a lot about how it functions.


----------



## hudkina

When I say "compact", I don't mean the compactness of the individual urban areas, but the compactness of the megalopolis as a whole. In other words, the major cities are relatively far apart in the Blue Banana and Rust Belt in comparison to the Northeast Megalopolis.


----------



## julesstoop

Even that is open to debate. Compare these two maps:

Bos-Wash
Central part of the blue banana (Amsterdam-Stuttgart)

It's not that much more compact. Especially when considering the population size represented by each map. (and I'm just counting those within the area of the respective megalopolises here, not Paris or Rochester for instance).


----------



## hudkina

I've never denied that the Rhine river acts as the backbone of a major megalopolis. I've only questioned the inclusion of the U.K. and northern Italy.


----------



## aliveinchains

hudkina said:


> I've never denied that the Rhine river acts as the backbone of a major megalopolis. I've only questioned the inclusion of the U.K. and northern Italy.


Well, London has strong economical relationships with Benelux cities, so do Benelux cities with Rein-Ruhr...Rein-Ruhr with Swiss and Nord Italy, that is how you should look at blue banana and its connections...
On the other hand there are plenty English businessmen, managers, specialist visiting economical capital of Italy – Milan; many apartments in Italian alps are bought by Brits. North Italian automotive industry companies cooperate with its British partners...remember, that more than 60% of British trade turnover is done between UK and EU members (mostly :France, Germany, Belgium, Holland and Italy)...


----------



## Blackpool88

aliveinchains said:


> Well, London has strong economical relationships with Benelux cities, so do Benelux cities with Rein-Ruhr...Rein-Ruhr with Swiss and Nord Italy, that is how you should look at blue banana and its connections...
> On the other hand there are plenty English businessmen, managers, specialist visiting economical capital of Italy – Milan; many apartments in Italian alps are bought by Brits. North Italian automotive industry companies cooperate with its British partners...remember, that more than 60% of British trade turnover is done between UK and EU members (mostly :France, Germany, Belgium, Holland and Italy)...



Yes it seems like the concept is more of an economically interacting region rather then a continuous urban area which some pople here can't seem to get their heads around. If you cut London and Madrid out of the Blue Banana do the population and economic figures begin to look less spectacular? because that would seem to make more sense in terms of continuous urban area but I would agree that the Blue banana is very well connected economically, is it the most important region with regards to the global economy?


----------



## hudkina

Blackpool88 said:


> Yes it seems like the concept is more of an economically interacting region rather then a continuous urban area which some pople here can't seem to get their heads around.


It's not that I can't get my head around it. If you want to call it an economic corridor, then I have no problems. The Blue Banana is one of the world's largest economic corridors. However it isn't a megalopolis comparable to the Northeast Megalopolis.


----------



## Blackpool88

hudkina said:


> It's not that I can't get my head around it. If you want to call it an economic corridor, then I have no problems. The Blue Banana is one of the world's largest economic corridors. However it isn't a megalopolis comparable to the Northeast Megalopolis.


I wasn't saying you, you do seem to be one of the ones who understand. But it begs the question, what is the definition of Megalopolis? 

Is it a loosely linked economic corridor containing a number of metro areas, or a large (almoast)connected urban area containing a number of metros?


----------



## julesstoop

hudkina said:


> I've never denied that the Rhine river acts as the backbone of a major megalopolis. I've only questioned the inclusion of the U.K. and northern Italy.


Fair enough. It's open to debate for me as well.


----------



## the spliff fairy

1. First pic, a European city surrounded by apparent countryside - but why does the commuter rail extend so far out, and so densely?











2. Second pic- artificial highlighting (light pink areas) shows up the thousands of high density commuter villages and towns
that pepper the so-called 'green belt'. 

Note how the urban 'peppering' completely blurs the distinction between city and 'country' in the western areas:










*In short, judging by satellite pics, whilst North American cities show low density suburbs that blanket the area, European cities don't show the high density peppering that blankets much of the country.* Going by population densities the truer picture of urbanity is revealed, hence why the Blue Banana is one of the densest and most interconnected swathes of humanity on the planet, though deceptively so. For the UK alone this accounts for how 48 million urbanites fit in an area the size of Maine, yet without contiguous, wall to wall suburbia. Once again, going by urban population densities, millions of people will suddenly 'appear' out from seeming nowhere. Its just their neighbourhoods aren't immediately obvious from space imagery.



.


----------



## Shera

Blackpool88 said:


> I wasn't saying you, you do seem to be one of the ones who understand. But it begs the question, what is the definition of Megalopolis?
> 
> Is it a loosely linked economic corridor containing a number of metro areas, or a large (almoast)connected urban area containing a number of metros?


The definition is not a loosely linked "economic corridor". 

From dictionary.com, it is quoted:



> *A vast stretch of developed industrial urban area, such as the East Coast of the United States from Boston to Washington, D.C., or the Ruhr Valley in Germany. Megalopolis is from Greek words meaning “great city.”*


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/megalopolis


----------



## dnobsemajdnob

This megalopolis thread is getting ridiculous.

Basically, it all boils down to this. Pursuant to non-US calculations, the metro areas are as follows:

Tokyo 35m
London 30m
Shanghai, Mexico City, Sao Paulo, Cairo and Jakarta 25m
Paris, Beijing, HK and Shenzen 20m
NY and Milan 15m
Barcelona, Madrid, Rome, LA 10m
Chicago, Manchester, Liverpool 7m


----------



## julesstoop

You're forgetting Amsterdam-Brussels-Cologne @ 40m :nuts:


----------



## Blackpool88

dnobsemajdnob said:


> This megalopolis thread is getting ridiculous.
> 
> Basically, it all boils down to this. Pursuant to non-US calculations, the metro areas are as follows:
> 
> Tokyo 35m
> London 30m
> Shanghai, Mexico City, Sao Paulo, Cairo and Jakarta 25m
> Paris, Beijing, HK and Shenzen 20m
> NY and Milan 15m
> Barcelona, Madrid, Rome, LA 10m
> Chicago, Manchester, Liverpool 7m



In attempting to wrap the thread up in a concise manner, you've instead blown it open with a tresure trove of complete bollocks, where do you get any of those figures from?


----------



## dnobsemajdnob

From the European model of computing metros.


----------



## hudkina

dnobsemajdnob said:


> This megalopolis thread is getting ridiculous.
> 
> Basically, it all boils down to this. Pursuant to non-US calculations, the metro areas are as follows:
> 
> Tokyo 35m
> London 30m
> Shanghai, Mexico City, Sao Paulo, Cairo and Jakarta 25m
> Paris, Beijing, HK and Shenzen 20m
> NY and Milan 15m
> Barcelona, Madrid, Rome, LA 10m
> Chicago, Manchester, Liverpool 7m


How can you possibly think London has 30 million people? Even if you include the entirety of the London, East of England, and South East regions the population is barely more than 20 million in an area larger than 15,000 sq. mi. In comparison, New York has about 20 million people in less than 6,000 sq. mi. Los Angeles has nearly 15 million people in about 2,300 sq. mi.

My question is do you _honestly_ believe these numbers or are you just posting them to get some kind of response?


----------



## dnobsemajdnob

London is 4,000 to 6,000 years old. How can it not be bigger than NY and LA?


----------



## monkeyronin

dnobsemajdnob said:


> London is 4,000 to 6,000 years old. How can it not be bigger than NY and LA?


Holy ****, please be a troll. I don't want to believe that anyone is this goddamn stupid. By your logic, 12,000 year-old Damascus (pop. 4.5 million) should be bigger than 500 year-old Tokyo (35 million). Its 24 times as old, how can it not be bigger?? :crazy:

Oh, and London is 2,000 years old, not 6,000.




dnobsemajdnob said:


> From the European model of computing metros.


Then why are the numbers of European cities so inflated if they're even in "their" model? I mean, you essentially just doubled the metro populations of all the European cities you've listed.


----------



## Xusein

I think that you guys should just ignore dnobsemajdnob for the discussion's sake. 

As for the current discussion, there is no globally uniform definition for a metro area let alone one for something as vague as a Megalopolis so I think it can be acknowledged that the "Blue Banana" is a Megalopolis. But if we are going to add something like that, connecting BosWash to some of the Southern cities (Richmond, Raleigh, Charlotte, Atlanta, Birmingham) wouldn't sound too far fetched, eh?


----------



## Marky_boy

hudkina said:


> How can you possibly think London has 30 million people? Even if you include the entirety of the London, East of England, and South East regions the population is barely more than 20 million in an area larger than 15,000 sq. mi. In comparison, New York has about 20 million people in less than 6,000 sq. mi. Los Angeles has nearly 15 million people in about 2,300 sq. mi.
> 
> My question is do you _honestly_ believe these numbers or are you just posting them to get some kind of response?


The rural East of England is not the London Metro area. The north coast of Norfolk is 3 hours drive from London. If you want to make that comparison then include tens of thousands of square miles of desert with LA. If one was to include eastern parts of the south west, e.g. Bristol area that has 1 million people, Bournemouth/Poole area that has half a million, the population would be greater and cover a smaller area.


----------



## julesstoop

He seems to be just wiggling his fingers and wait as to what comes out in order to ridicule this discussion and have some fun (trolling). Just ignore.


----------



## dnobsemajdnob

Is this discussion serious?

Oh, well, excuuuuusse me! :lol:


----------



## hudkina

Marky_boy said:


> The rural East of England is not the London Metro area. The north coast of Norfolk is 3 hours drive from London. If you want to make that comparison then include tens of thousands of square miles of desert with LA. If one was to include eastern parts of the south west, e.g. Bristol area that has 1 million people, Bournemouth/Poole area that has half a million, the population would be greater and cover a smaller area.


I was replying to the now obviously facetious statement that London had 30 million people in its metro area. I stated that even including farflung areas that aren't even remotely part of a "metropolitan" London wouldn't get a population much more than 20 million. As I've said before, at most it is in the 12-15 million range, though more likely in the 10-12 million range. And the whole point is that cities like Bristol, etc. aren't part of "metropolitan" London.

As far as L.A. is concerned, while people often point to the tens of thousands of square miles that make up the Los Angeles CSA, the reality is that the vast majority of the metro area is uninhabited deserts and mountains. Many people don't realize that Los Angeles has around 15 million people in an area about half the size of France's Isle-de-France region. It is one of the largest and overall densest urban regions in the world. Even London and Paris don't have the same population as Los Angeles in such a small area.


----------



## Shera

I cannot remember whether it's in the world, or just in the USA, but at least I am very sure that it's in the USA that the Los Angeles metro area has the largest 10,000 people per square mile density area total, more so than New York City.

http://www.demographia.com/db-uaover10k.htm

However, this data is from 1990, which is ancient. As for the world, I'm pretty sure that Tokyo metro area has far greater land area consisted of 10000+ people per square mile.


----------



## wjfox

:lock:


----------

