# World City Size Comparison (NASA!)



## Manila-X

djm19 said:


> No. LA use to be the largest in the US (and world). But other cities have expanded since then. I think somewhere in Arkansas is the largest. And possibly Atlanta or Phoenix.


LA has *never* been the largest city in the US. NY has been the largest for the past century. Chicago was no.2 and LA, 3 but LA exceeded Chicago during the mid 80s.

And that image of HK is incomplete since it only showed parts of HK Island and Kowloon.


----------



## _00_deathscar

Epi said:


> Pretty cool, but is this really accurate? Hong Kong is larger than New Orleans in real life, but not on your picture...



The picture of Hong Kong shows only the urbanised areas of Hong Kong Island and coastal Kowloon ~ Lantau, the rest of Kowloon and New Territories are missing.


----------



## Calvin W

I think we are talking area wise not population for LA. It does have a HUGE area of sprawl.


----------



## Armon

Calvin W said:


> I think we are talking area wise not population for LA. It does have a HUGE area of sprawl.


yea is think LA is the largest sprawl in the US if not the world.


----------



## Manila-X

Armon said:


> yea is think LA is the largest sprawl in the US if not the world.


Yes LA does have one of the largest urban areas in the US. But it's also if cities and towns outside LA County are included. That includes cities and towns within Orange, Ventura, San Bernardino or Riverside Counties.


----------



## Brendan

That is wrong, Sydney is much bigger!


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor

*@ rotten777*



> American metros are huge...
> 
> I believe New York is the world's largest urbanized area...correct me if I'm wrong...


New York Tri-State Area's urbanized area is smaller than the urbanized area of Tokyo. Tokyo is the undisputed king of *urbanized areas*. However, Tokyo can't claim having the *largest overall built-up sprawl* (which is comprised of: urban areas + suburban areas + industrial areas + exurban areas) because New York Tri-State Area takes this title. 

The entire Tri-State Area's overall built-up sprawl is so big even Greater Los Angeles (Southland) is dwarfed in comparison. Greater Chicago (Chicagoland), is a close second in size to the Tri-State Area. The reason why it is so big is that newer suburbs or exurbs are so sparsely built-up (one of America's most sparsely built-up areas). It simply sprawls like a mofo beyond the actual borders of New York City. New York City's dense areas (or urban sprawl) is only found in a relatively small area (Manhattan; parts of Bronx, Brooklyn, and Queens). Meanwhile, almost all of Greater Tokyo's overall built-up area is defined as urban. Moreover, level of urbanity is pretty much sprawled evenly all throughout its built-up area.


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor

*@ Killer789*



> That is wrong, Sydney is much bigger!


Uhhh! NO! 

Sydney is nowhere near beating Los Angeles' sprawl! 

These are the only built-up sprawls that are larger than Greater Los Angeles:
1. New York Tri-State Area
2. "Chicagoland"
3. Atlanta
4. Greater Tokyo (Yes, it is larger...lots of Greater Tokyo are missing on that comparative map.)

NOTE: Phoenix, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Boston, Washington D.C. + Urban parts of Virginia, Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, Miami are catching up, too.


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor

*@arzaranh*

Please don't use a "political" map to compare metro sizes because it is the most misleading of all types of comparisons and it confuses those not well-versed with global city-by-city urbanization since the jargon of camparative overall built-up areas is confusing enough.


----------



## Octoman

Miami looks to cover a vast area too. Much larger than I expected. For some reason I didn't think the urban area expanded so far inland.


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor

*Miami HUGE!*

Yea, Miami is also in a binge for suburbanization because it is a very favorable retirement destination.


----------



## kamloon

actually half of hk people are living outside the red line shown above, hk is not only kowloon and north hk island


----------



## Lee

_00_deathscar said:


> The picture of Hong Kong shows only the urbanised areas of Hong Kong Island and coastal Kowloon ~ Lantau, the rest of Kowloon and New Territories are missing.


Tell me, in the picture shown of HKG, how many people live within that area?


----------



## inthejungle

So... there's more people on that _little_ Mexico city than in the other BIG cities? :runaway:


----------



## gutooo

I would like to see Sao Paulo in that comparison!


----------



## dave8721

Octoman said:


> Miami looks to cover a vast area too. Much larger than I expected. For some reason I didn't think the urban area expanded so far inland.


It doesnt extend very far inland at all. The absolute widest it gets it about 15 miles. One thing to point out is that what is pictured is all of the Miami metro while most of the other US cities pictured extend for many miles farther outside of what is pictured. For example, in reality Miami's sprawl covers about half the total land of Chicago's sprawl though you would never know it from these pictures since Chicago extends far beyond the picture but at a very low density.

Here is the size of the urban areas for the US's 10 biggest (in population Urbanized areas):

size:
New York - 8683.2 sq km
Chicago - 5498.1 sq km
Philadelphia - 4660.7 sq km
Boston - 4496.7 sq km
Los Angeles - 4319.9 sq km
Dallas - 3644.2 sq km 
Houston - 3354.7 sq km
Detroit - 3267.1 sq km
Washington DC - 2996 sq km
Miami - 2890.7 sq km

Miami is actually the smallest.

as for this comment:
"Yea, Miami is also in a binge for suburbanization because it is a very favorable retirement destination."

That is quite possibly the most innacurate comment posted in a while on SSC unless it was posted in 1970 or something...Miami isnt much of a retirement destination anymore and where in the hell did you hear it was on a binge of suburbanization???


----------



## EtherealMist

djm19 said:


> No. LA use to be the largest in the US (and world). But other cities have expanded since then. I think somewhere in Arkansas is the largest. And possibly Atlanta or Phoenix.


somewhere in Arkansas is the largest? is this supposed to be a joke?

And there is definitely alot of New Jersey and Connecticut missing from the NYC metro pic. The NYC metro covers the most area in the world. Tokyo has the highest population (by far).


----------



## polako

Calvin W said:


> NY seems to be missing parts of NJ and Conn. Once again this shows how much sprawl affects cities around the world.


I was thinking the same thing. Huge chunks of sprawl are missing. Sprawl in NJ goes way past I-287. 

NYC Sprawl in 1990:









By the way NYC built-up area is the largest in the world with 3,353 sq miles of built up land and 17.8 million people, followed by Tokyo with 2,700 sq. miles and 33.2 million people.


----------



## Grey Towers

Area-wise, I thought Jacksonville, Fl. and Norfolk, Va. were two of the most expansive in the U.S.


----------



## svs

dave8721 said:


> It doesnt extend very far inland at all. The absolute widest it gets it about 15 miles. One thing to point out is that what is pictured is all of the Miami metro while most of the other US cities pictured extend for many miles farther outside of what is pictured. For example, in reality Miami's sprawl covers about half the total land of Chicago's sprawl though you would never know it from these pictures since Chicago extends far beyond the picture but at a very low density.
> 
> Here is the size of the urban areas for the US's 10 biggest (in population Urbanized areas):
> 
> size:
> New York - 8683.2 sq km
> Chicago - 5498.1 sq km
> Philadelphia - 4660.7 sq km
> Boston - 4496.7 sq km
> Los Angeles - 4319.9 sq km
> Dallas - 3644.2 sq km
> Houston - 3354.7 sq km
> Detroit - 3267.1 sq km
> Washington DC - 2996 sq km
> Miami - 2890.7 sq km
> 
> Miami is actually the smallest.
> 
> as for this comment:
> "Yea, Miami is also in a binge for suburbanization because it is a very favorable retirement destination."
> 
> That is quite possibly the most innacurate comment posted in a while on SSC unless it was posted in 1970 or something...Miami isnt much of a retirement destination anymore and where in the hell did you hear it was on a binge of suburbanization???


These figures have to be wrong or comparing apples to Oranges. There is no way that the Chicago Urban area is bigger that LA's which spreads out over parts of five counties.


----------



## polako

The Cebuano Exultor said:


> New York Tri-State Area's urbanized area is smaller than the urbanized area of Tokyo. Tokyo is the undisputed king of *urbanized areas*. However, Tokyo can't claim having the *largest overall built-up sprawl* (which is comprised of: urban areas + suburban areas + industrial areas + exurban areas) because New York Tri-State Area takes this title.
> 
> The entire Tri-State Area's overall built-up sprawl is so big even Greater Los Angeles (Southland) is dwarfed in comparison. Greater Chicago (Chicagoland), is a close second in size to the Tri-State Area. The reason why it is so big is that newer suburbs or exurbs are so sparsely built-up (one of America's most sparsely built-up areas). It simply sprawls like a mofo beyond the actual borders of New York City. New York City's dense areas (or urban sprawl) is only found in a relatively small area (Manhattan; parts of Bronx, Brooklyn, and Queens). Meanwhile, almost all of Greater Tokyo's overall built-up area is defined as urban. Moreover, level of urbanity is pretty much sprawled evenly all throughout its built-up area.


NYC's "urban sprawl" covers around 600 sq. miles out of the 3,353 sq. miles of built-up land. How can you even claim that only parts of the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Queens are urban and don't even mention Staten Island. If your claim is based on a guess rather than hardcore data then it would be better if you didn't post at all on a city you don't know much about. In fact the only part of NYC(within city limits) that is not "urban" is Southern Staten Island where around 150,000 people live. Outside the city limits the areas of Hudson Co., Southeastern Bergen Co., Southern Passaic Co., Eastern Essex Co., Eastern Union Co., Southern Westchester Co. and Southwestern Nassau Co. are all urban.(>9,000sq. mile) All together 11 million people live in the dense areas or urban sprawl of NYC's built-up area. 6.8 million live in suburban sprawl on 2700 sq. miles.

Source: census.gov


----------



## ArchiTennis

dave8721 said:


> It doesnt extend very far inland at all. The absolute widest it gets it about 15 miles. One thing to point out is that what is pictured is all of the Miami metro while most of the other US cities pictured extend for many miles farther outside of what is pictured. For example, in reality Miami's sprawl covers about half the total land of Chicago's sprawl though you would never know it from these pictures since Chicago extends far beyond the picture but at a very low density.
> 
> Here is the size of the urban areas for the US's 10 biggest (in population Urbanized areas):
> 
> size:
> New York - 8683.2 sq km
> Chicago - 5498.1 sq km
> Philadelphia - 4660.7 sq km
> Boston - 4496.7 sq km
> Los Angeles - 4319.9 sq km
> Dallas - 3644.2 sq km
> Houston - 3354.7 sq km
> Detroit - 3267.1 sq km
> Washington DC - 2996 sq km
> Miami - 2890.7 sq km
> 
> Miami is actually the smallest.
> 
> as for this comment:
> "Yea, Miami is also in a binge for suburbanization because it is a very favorable retirement destination."
> 
> That is quite possibly the most innacurate comment posted in a while on SSC unless it was posted in 1970 or something...Miami isnt much of a retirement destination anymore and where in the hell did you hear it was on a binge of suburbanization???


:weird: What a joke!! the topic is about size, dumbass...not population per sq. km.....


----------



## eusebius

Just from looking at the Phoenix map, you can tell it's probably an enormously boring place.


----------



## Elsongs

Are these measuring city limits, or metopolitan areas? The actual city limits of Los Angeles make up only 1/4 of the image that is shown. New York is even smaller. These comparisons aren't accurate since some of the maps show the entire metropolitan area while others only show the city limits. 

NYC is the largest city in the USA by population. But the city in the USA with the largest *city limits* is Anchorage, Alaska - 5,079 sq km (1,961 sq mi). By comparison, Los Angeles city limits comprise of 1,291 sq km (498 sq mi) and NYC's city limits comprise of 1,214 sq km (469 sq mi). In fact, the city limits of the four largest US cities in population: New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Houston can all fit within the city limits of Anchorage.


----------



## Elsongs

svs said:


> These figures have to be wrong or comparing apples to Oranges. There is no way that the Chicago Urban area is bigger that LA's which spreads out over parts of five counties.


It's so funny how most people here simply assume that as fact without supporting it with numbers. Yes the Los Angeles Metro area encompasses five counties, but if you look at the actual counties (including Los Angeles County), the metro area only populates just a small fraction of them (including San Bernardino County, the largest county in the contiguous 48 states).


----------



## null

> The actual city limits of Los Angeles make up only 1/4 of the image that is shown. New York is even smaller. These comparisons aren't accurate since some of the maps show the entire metropolitan area while others only show the city limits.


agreed


----------



## oliver999

i'd like to see shanghai and beijing in this map.


----------



## arzaranh

The Cebuano Exultor said:


> Please don't use a "political" map to compare metro sizes because it is the most misleading of all types of comparisons and it confuses those not well-versed with global city-by-city urbanization since the jargon of camparative overall built-up areas is confusing enough.


i wasn't comparing metro sizes i meant that there were areas that had been left out of the L.A. map which are both urban and part of the Greater Los Angeles Metro area. no one would have been confused if i could prove that "there is a medium sized chunk over there to the left" that was left out. and just so others know, the counties of riverside and san bernadino combined are larger than the area on the map in this thread but only a small portion of those counties actually are apart of the L.A. urban area.

*Grey Towers* idk were you got norfolk as being large because i used to live there and it's not. in it's metro area it's not even the largest city in area or population.


----------



## OtAkAw

Very Nice, is that to scale?


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor

*@ polako*

Sorry, man...I might have given the wrong message accross regarding my comments on Tri-State Area densities. What I truly would want to say is that only Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx, and Manhattan have the urban density and/or urban atmosphere similar to average Greater Tokyo urban density. 

I concede that I've been off with real "hard" facts about this one. But, given that my eyes weren't cheated by Google Earth, I can daresay that only Manhattan, Bronx, Brooklyn, and Queen (yes...Northern Staten Island not withstanding) are the places within New York Tri-State Area that have greater and/or equal density to the general/average density of Greater Tokyo.

So, again...sorry.

Cheers :cheers:


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor

*@ dave8721*



> as for this comment:
> "Yea, Miami is also in a binge for suburbanization because it is a very favorable retirement destination."
> 
> That is quite possibly the most innacurate comment posted in a while on SSC unless it was posted in 1970 or something...Miami isnt much of a retirement destination anymore and where in the hell did you hear it was on a binge of suburbanization???


Well, ok...if you say so.

But anyway, I know, for a fact, that many cities in Florida have become hot retirement destinations same way that cities like Phoenix have become. Since Miami is the largest metro in the state of Florida, I can assume that it is one of those cities most probable for getting these retirees to set up their suburban homes.

Peace.


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor

*@ arzaranh*



> yes that is very cool - i've been wanting to see that for years- but i think you left off some of los angeles - *i'll have to check a political map to be sure though. but still great work!*


I was actually referring to the part of your post that I've highlighted.

Anyway, I think I get your point.


----------



## polako

The Cebuano Exultor said:


> Sorry, man...I might have given the wrong message accross regarding my comments on Tri-State Area densities. What I truly would want to say is that only Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx, and Manhattan have the urban density and/or urban atmosphere similar to average Greater Tokyo urban density.
> 
> I concede that I've been off with real "hard" facts about this one. But, given that my eyes weren't cheated by Google Earth, I can daresay that only Manhattan, Bronx, Brooklyn, and Queen (yes...Northern Staten Island not withstanding) are the places within New York Tri-State Area that have greater and/or equal density to the general/average density of Greater Tokyo.
> 
> So, again...sorry.
> 
> Cheers :cheers:


You need to see this:http://www.socialexplorer.com/pub/maps/home.aspx
Zoom in to the Tri-State Area and you'll see exactly what I mean.


----------



## bob rulz

tennisguyinHtown said:


> :weird: What a joke!! the topic is about size, dumbass...not population per sq. km.....


The post wasn't about people per square kilometer dumbass.


----------



## Justme

The Cebuano Exultor said:


> Uhhh! NO!
> 
> Sydney is nowhere near beating Los Angeles' sprawl!
> 
> These are the only built-up sprawls that are larger than Greater Los Angeles:
> 1. New York Tri-State Area
> 2. "Chicagoland"
> 3. Atlanta
> 4. Greater Tokyo (Yes, it is larger...lots of Greater Tokyo are missing on that comparative map.)
> 
> NOTE: Phoenix, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Boston, Washington D.C. + Urban parts of Virginia, Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, Miami are catching up, too.


True, Sydney is nowhere near as big as LA's sprawl, but what is shown on that satellite map of Sydney's urban area is completely wrong. It misses almost all of the Northern Suburbs which is simply crazy.

Quite simply, whoever added Sydney to that comparison has made some very big mistakes.


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor

*@ polako*



> You need to see this:http://www.socialexplorer.com/pub/maps/home.aspx
> Zoom in to the Tri-State Area and you'll see exactly what I mean.


Thanks for the link. 

Anyway, what I find jaw-droppingly awesome about Tokyo's density as compared to the New York Tri-State Area is that it has an evenly distibuted population density all-throughout. 

Okay, i can see now where I'm wrong. So, basically, there are equally dense areas (Tokyo-level dense areas) in New Jersey such as: Paterson, Clifton, Irvington, Elizabeth, Bayonne; in New York State such as: Mount Vernon; in Long Island (New York) such as Hempstead. But the thing is...they're not uniformly spread. I mean, *there is that large sparse area in New Jersey* just after passing Union City and environs before you reach Paterson or Clifton. 

Anyway, thanks again.


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor

*@ Justme*



> Quite simply, whoever added Sydney to that comparison has made some very big mistakes.


TRUE...


----------



## Kiss the Rain

Justme said:


> True, Sydney is nowhere near as big as LA's sprawl, but what is shown on that satellite map of Sydney's urban area is completely wrong. It misses almost all of the Northern Suburbs which is simply crazy.
> 
> Quite simply, whoever added Sydney to that comparison has made some very big mistakes.


Who want our beautiful Sydney to be contaminated with huge sprawl like that anyway? The smaller the better!


----------



## Kiss the Rain

If you count the total space the whole city occupy, then north american city would definitely win like LA or Chicago, but if you count the TOTAL FLOOR SPACE, then asian cities like tokyo kicks everyones' ass, because the word suburb in their dictionary infact means multi leveled apartments.


----------



## Tubeman

This thread is teetering on the brink of City v City :sly:


----------



## Justme

Kiss the Rain said:


> Who want our beautiful Sydney to be contaminated with huge sprawl like that anyway? The smaller the better!


It has nothing to do with what we _want._ It's about reality, and the fact is, that whole portions of urban area were cut from the Sydney map


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor

*@ Tubeman*



> This thread is teetering on the brink of City v City


^^ But as long as this thread doesn't end up being trolled by someone...its okay...right?


----------



## Octoman

Tubeman said:


> This thread is teetering on the brink of City v City :sly:


I really hope it doesnt end up that way. These discussions are interesting and usually only spoiled by a small minority from the `mines bigger than yours` brigade.


----------



## _00_deathscar

Lee said:


> Tell me, in the picture shown of HKG, how many people live within that area?


Not sure of the official figure, but I'm estimating between 2.5-3m of HK'ss 7m population.


----------



## hongkiu

*gd photo*

HK has fully using its land resources, remain some hills and mountains which is impossible to construct


----------



## the spliff fairy

Hong Kong is beautiful from these pics - so small yet housing 7 million! Thats anti sprawl for ya


----------



## _00_deathscar

Well it doesn't really have much choice anyway.


----------



## Pax Sinica

the spliff fairy said:


> Hong Kong is beautiful from these pics - so small yet housing 7 million! Thats anti sprawl for ya


Not 7 million, just around 3.5 million in that area.


----------



## the spliff fairy

Oh I see, but as far as I now the other satellite towns are still miniscule, maybe doubling the size, which is still tiny.

the rest of the precious peninsular and island land is protected - I hear every year its so uninhabited or thickly forested people die out there after getting lost. Imagine dying from exposure or thirst in the worlds most densely populated city?? If thats not anti sprawl for ya I don't know what is...


----------



## Shanghai City

i can`t see the pic  
Can anybody give me a link to the picture?


----------



## dave8721

tennisguyinHtown said:


> :weird: What a joke!! the topic is about size, dumbass...not population per sq. km.....


Who mentioned population per sqaure mile???? Those are metro sizes (as in you know...extent), hence the "square mile" after the number...


----------



## polako

The Cebuano Exultor said:


> Thanks for the link.
> 
> Anyway, what I find jaw-droppingly awesome about Tokyo's density as compared to the New York Tri-State Area is that it has an evenly distibuted population density all-throughout.
> 
> Okay, i can see now where I'm wrong. So, basically, there are equally dense areas (Tokyo-level dense areas) in New Jersey such as: Paterson, Clifton, Irvington, Elizabeth, Bayonne; in New York State such as: Mount Vernon; in Long Island (New York) such as Hempstead. But the thing is...they're not uniformly spread. I mean, *there is that large sparse area in New Jersey* just after passing Union City and environs before you reach Paterson or Clifton.
> 
> Anyway, thanks again.


I totally catch your drift about Tokyo's almost uniform density.


----------



## Zenith

Wheres the picture of Tiverton?


----------



## EtherealMist

The Cebuano Exultor said:


> Thanks for the link.
> 
> Anyway, what I find jaw-droppingly awesome about Tokyo's density as compared to the New York Tri-State Area is that it has an evenly distibuted population density all-throughout.
> 
> Okay, i can see now where I'm wrong. So, basically, there are equally dense areas (Tokyo-level dense areas) in New Jersey such as: Paterson, Clifton, Irvington, Elizabeth, Bayonne; in New York State such as: Mount Vernon; in Long Island (New York) such as Hempstead. But the thing is...they're not uniformly spread. I mean, *there is that large sparse area in New Jersey* just after passing Union City and environs before you reach Paterson or Clifton.
> 
> Anyway, thanks again.


Yeah thats the New Jersey Meadowlands, it probably would of been built up along time ago if not for all the wet lands in the area. Instead it was the site to many land fills for a number of years. Its also where Giants stadium is located. Today its protected by NJ Meadowlands Commision which is responsible for the environmental problems of the area.



polako said:


> You need to see this:http://www.socialexplorer.com/pub/maps/home.aspx
> Zoom in to the Tri-State Area and you'll see exactly what I mean.


Great link Polako, I cant remember how many times I wanted to find pop. density maps and couldnt.


----------



## LordChaos80

Is the pic of Miami really on scale with the others? Seems to cover most of Florida then and should have a pop. like Tokyo...


----------



## will.exe

Largest URBANIZED area is New York metro as far as I know (largest URBANIZED city proper is Tokyo). But the largest city by area (city proper) in the world is Timmins, Ontario.


----------



## LordChaos80

will.exe said:


> But the largest city by area (city proper) in the world is Timmins, Ontario.


Yeah, sure... Timmins, Ontario... :nuts:


----------



## EtherealMist

...also the lowest density of any city haha


----------



## will.exe

LordChaos80 said:


> Yeah, sure... Timmins, Ontario... :nuts:


NOT URBANIZED area...youre not listening :nuts: . Timmins is the largest city in the world by area, but hardly any of it is urbanized. It has a huge area that extends far beyond the built up area for reasons I dont pretend to comprehend. Its stupid and anal but its true. Juneau, Alaska is up there too for the same reason.


----------



## UrbanSophist

Armon said:


> new york is the largest.


Did he mean population-wise or land area-wise? If he meant the latter, it seems L.A. is bigger.


----------



## softee

will.exe said:


> Largest URBANIZED area is New York metro as far as I know (largest URBANIZED city proper is Tokyo). But the largest city by area (city proper) in the world is Timmins, Ontario.


That's no longer the case, Timmins isn't even the biggest city by area in Northern Ontario any longer, Greater Sudbury has a larger area than Timmins does. Wood Buffalo in Alberta also has a larger area than Timmins. 

As for the rest of the world, i'm sure that there are many cities with larger areas than any of the 3 above mentioned Canadian cities.


----------



## ssiguy2

Its important to use this as a GENERAL guide to population density and their "footprint" on the planet. 
I know that Australian cities are well known for their low-density suburban sprawl. All you have to do is look at any city photo and outside of downtown/inner city there are almost no highrises but nearly all low density suburban sprawl. 
Also it depends on what you call "urban". Remember Dacca Bangledech has about 14 million but then is the whole country is about the size of Colorado yet is home to a whopping 150 million people.


----------



## Shawn

Polako, I'm honestly not sure what you're talking about. Here is a list of all Combined Statistical Areas in the US, including components, directly from the US Census website, as of 2005:

http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/metro_general/List6.txt

Prior to 2000, there were units called Combined Metropolitan Statistical Areas, which have since been replaced by the more "demanding" CSA definition which includes the 15% commuter requirement.

Here are New York's components:

*408 New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA Combined Statistical Area*
408 14860 Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area
408 28740 Kingston, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area
408 35300 New Haven-Milford, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area
408 35620 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA Metropolitan Statistical Area
408 39100 Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area
408 45860 Torrington, CT Micropolitan Statistical Area
408 45940 Trenton-Ewing, NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area

The 2005 estimated population is 21,903,623. And if you don't believe that Kingston or Torrington aren't "periphery", then I guess we have differing opinions on what 100 miles northeast of Manhattan should be called; for the record, Torrington is further from New York City than Utsunomiya is from Tokyo.


----------



## staff

This thread again? Argh.

SHiRO made maps of hundreds of major cities in the world a while back - much more accurate than the maps in the first post of this thread. I hoppe he will notice this thread and post the maps here.

The largest urban agglomerations (built-up areas including suburban sprawl) are: New York, Tokyo, Los Angeles, Chicago. In that order. Of course, for the American cities the urban areas mostly consists of suburban sprawl while for Tokyo and other Asian/European cities they consist of urban build-up to a much higher extent.


----------



## Shawn

Also, if you want to see technical jargon on how the Census defines areas, look no further than here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/bulletins/b03-04_attach.pdf

"Metropolitan Statistical Areas have at least one urbanized area of 50,000 or more population, plus adjacent territory that has a high degree of social and economic integration with the core as measured by commuting ties. Micropolitan Statistical Areas – a new set of statistical areas – have at least one urban cluster of at least 10,000 but less than 50,000 population, plus adjacent territory that has a high degree of social and economic integration with the core as measured by commuting ties. Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas are defined in terms of whole counties (or equivalent entities), including in the six New England States. If the specified criteria are met, a Metropolitan Statistical Area containing a single core with a population of 2.5 million or more may be subdivided to form smaller groupings of counties referred to as Metropolitan Divisions."

"If specified criteria are met, adjacent Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas, in various combinations, may become the components of a new set of areas called Combined Statistical Areas. For instance, a Combined Statistical Area may comprise two or more Metropolitan Statistical Areas, a Metropolitan Statistical Area and a Micropolitan Statistical Area, two or more Micropolitan Statistical Areas, or multiple Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas. The geographic components of Combined New England City and Town Areas are individual metropolitan and micropolitan NECTAs, in various combinations. The areas that combine retain their own designations as Metropolitan or Micropolitan Statistical Areas (or NECTAs) within the larger Combined Statistical Area (or Combined NECTAs). Combinations for adjacent areas with an employment interchange of 25 or more are automatic. Combinations for adjacent areas with an employment interchange of at least 15 but less than 25 are based on local opinion as expressed through the Congressional delegations."

So as you can see, politics plays an important role in the definition of American metros, seemingly moreso than built environment. If the Congressional delegation representing Torrington (Litchfield County) feels that their district will benefit from association with New York, and if at least 15% of Litchfield's workforce commutes to a county already part of the New York CSA (like Fairfield County, in this case), then with a wave of the magic wand, all of Litchfield County becomes part of the New York metro. This does not reflect actual urban size whatsoever, and very few of Litchfield's residents actually work in New York City.


----------



## polako

What I'm trying to tell you is that the new standard(SBSA) doesn't include periphery. The old standard does. That is why they updated the standard. Although data is published for both. Anyway you look at it, the lowest population figure one can come up with for the NYC Metro is 17.8 million which is purely comparable to Tokyo's 33.2 million because it is based on continuously built-up area.


----------



## Kenwen

Please post some more satelite photos


----------



## Riton

Shawn said:


> But then again, I also find the US Census' CMA definitions to be ridiculous _as an indicator of urban expanse_. American metros look larger than they really are, and if you want to cite some 22 million people as living in the New York Metro, then to be fair you should apply the same formula that came up with such an inflated number to other non-American cities you wish to draw comparison to. Hence the 48 million or so who live on the Kanto Plain would all be considered part of the Tokyo CMA by the US Census standards.


Yes, I agree. That is why Combined Statistical Areas should not be used for reporting US metropolitan areas. They are, after all, by definition composed of multiple metropolitan areas. So, Bridgeport-Stamford, New Haven, Trenton, Poughkeepsie-Newburgh, Kingston, and Torrington are not part of the NYC metro area. They are their own metro areas that just happen to exchange a significant number of commuters with each other. For example, Torrington is only included because there are siginificant commuters going from Litchfield County to the Danbury and Waterbury areas.

The official metropolitan areas of Japan use a definition of 1.5% of *total* population of a city/town/village commuting *to the core* (i.e. the 23 wards in the case of Tokyo), in contrast to the US system of 15-25% of the *employed* population of a county into one of the central counties (central counties roughly correspond to the urbanized area). See here for the official metro area definition in Japan.


----------



## will.exe

Where does Mexico City fit?


----------



## Hebrewtext

someone has to do the dirty job...
watch the scale is not exactly the same.









































































Warsaw









Istanbul









Athens









Beirut









Tel Aviv - Jaffa









Beijing









Shanghai









Tokyo


















Mexico city













































Sao paulo









Rio 









Sydney









Buenos Aires










Mumbai










Manila









Dubai









Cairo









Riad









Tehran


----------



## oliver999

seems tokyo is the 1ST


----------



## Xusein

When talking about the Tri-State Area, it really is getting kind of crazy, IMO.

I bet, the way it's going, _here_ will be part of it in about 20 years.


----------



## nygirl

Wow Sao... nuff said.


----------



## Facial

Los Angeles is bigger than most cities, because of the sprawl.

Even San Diego + North County can rival the size of many other large cities like Miami.


----------



## Epi

Shawn said:


> Now, realistically would I include Oyama within a "Greater Tokyo Metropolitan Area"? No, certainly not. Southern Tochigi is too disconnected from the Saitama midlands by *vast fields of delicious strawberries*.


But what if the strawberries weren't really delicious?


----------



## Vapour

Osaka - Kobe (Osaka is often forgotten)



Nagoya


----------



## FREKI

Copenhagen and New York 1:1 - Not bad eh?


----------



## vid

The scales for everything saopaolo on in that post up there is wrong, you zoomed in a bit. Everything is bigger than it should be. Also, google MAPS has a skewed projection. Use Google Earth, at about 35 km above ground to get a better idea, and measure the size by the city's conurbation, everything that is build up and connected to the same blob that the main downtown is in.


----------



## vid

Mount Isa, Queensland, Australia is the largest city in the world in terms of administrative area. 14,000 kilometres. That's four and a half Rhode Islands, about 5 and a half Luxembourgs, 8 singapores.


----------



## FREKI

vid said:


> Mount Isa, Queensland, Australia is the largest city in the world in terms of administrative area. 14,000 kilometres. That's four and a half Rhode Islands, about 5 and a half Luxembourgs, 8 singapores.


Nuuk on Greenland will take that title very soon when it's municipal is joined with 4 others ( we're cutting down big time on numbers of municipals and countries in the Kingdom ) making it 635.600 km2 ( pop 21.000  )

That's 15 times the size of mainland Denmark :lol:


----------



## aussiescraperman

just one thing about that list...i know melbourne is like 1.7times bigger than moscow in area. cuz i lived in both cities for large chunks of my life....i did some map overlays and stuff with them. moscow fits totally in melbourne's eastern suburbs.


----------



## poponoso

The Cebuano Exultor said:


> My Latest Rankings of the World's Largest Built-up Areas in Terms of Total Land Area:
> 
> 1. New York Tri-State Area
> 2. Greater Tokyo
> 3. Chicagoland
> 4. Greater Los Angeles (Southland)
> 5. Atlanta
> 6. San Francisco-Oakland-Sillicon Valley-Sacramento Area
> 7. Miami
> 8. Boston
> *9. Buenos Aires*
> 10. Cleveland
> 11. Washington-Baltimore Metroplex
> 12. Seattle
> 13. Phoenix
> 14. Dallas-Fort Worth
> 15. Nagoya-Nara-Toyota-Aichi (Chubu Region)
> 16. Detroit
> 17. Osaka-Kyoto-Kobe (Kansai Region)
> 18. Houston
> 19. Orlando
> 20. Rhein-Rhur Region
> 21. Sao Paulo
> 22. San Juan
> 23. Minneapolis/St. Paul
> 24. Moscow
> 25. Mexico City
> 26. Indianapolis
> 27. Toronto
> 28. Sydney
> 29. Kuala Lumpur
> 30. London
> 31. Melbourne
> 32. Jakarta
> 33. Paris
> 34. Mega Manila
> 35. Seoul-Incheon
> 36. Taipei
> 37. Beijing
> 38. Bangkok
> 39. Shanghai
> 40. New Orleans
> 41. Kolkata
> 42. New Delhi
> 43. Madrid
> 44. Singapore-Johor Bahru
> 45. Mumbai
> 46. Hong Kong
> 
> * I do not know where to place the following cities:
> - Salt Lake City
> - Kansas City
> - Athens
> - Milan
> - Rome
> - Barcelona
> - Vancouver
> - Johannesburg
> - Cairo
> - Lagos
> - Berlin
> - Dhaka
> - Istanbul
> - Tel-Aviv-Jerusalem
> - Brisbane
> - Zurich
> - Warsaw
> - Copenhagen
> - Stockholm
> - Montreal
> - Dubai
> - Abu Dhabi
> - Riyadh



*So, according to this ranking, Buenos Aires is the largest urban area in the world outside US. That makes sense, since BA area is really huge. It's about 100 km from North to South...*


----------



## Jakes1

If someone could do a search on Johannesburg. The city is approx 80km north to south and 60km east to west. Where Johannesburg ends to the North Pretoria begins - there is only a bit of open space between the two. To the West Johannesburg links up with Krugersdorp. to the east with Erkuhuleni Metro. It is one big urban sprawl and makes commuting a nightmare.

On the plus side - Johannesburg and Pretoria form the largest man made forest in the world - with over 6 million trees in Johannesburg alone.


----------



## Mr Bricks

The above list is laughable.


----------



## Saigoneseguy

San Juan? LOL


----------



## Karakuri

SuomiPoika said:


> The above list is laughable.


You're damn right!



> Nagoya-Nara-Toyota-Aichi (Chubu Region)


-Do you really think Nara is a suburb of Nagoya?!! Should it be in a suburb, it would be Osaka's, but the truth is Nara is in the countryside.
-Same thing for Toyota. From Nagoya you take the highway and it takes 40minutes to go to Toyota, and believe me you cross the countryside.
-Is Aichi a city? Nope man, it's a prefecture!! hno: 



> Mega Manila


What's that? A new city, next to Gotham City and Toonville?



> Hong Kong


Are you serious?

Where are Rio, Sao Polo... How come Seoul Incheon is 35th...?!!


----------



## Skabbymuff

the list is a total joke


----------



## Peloso

The list is funny indeed. Do an experiment. Launch Google Earth, go to Atlanta (5th on the list) and observe it from an height of 23.44 km (look at bottom-right part of the screen). Now go to New Delhi (42th on the list) and consider its sprawl from the same height. Now have a laugh.
I believe some 20% of the cities in the list are at (or rather close to) their own rightful place.


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor

*@ SuomiPoika*

Dude, I did not say my list is 100% correct. I didn't parade claiming, "Hey, look at my list 'cause it's the best there is!." I clearly pointed out in the title of the thread that it was _my_ own rankings.

So please, I beg you to be bit less tackless and rude. If you think my list is laughable don't say it bluntly like I don't even have any idea what I was listing about. 

Thanks. :cheers2:

Btw, I based most of the rankings of _my_ list from SHiRO's maps.


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor

*@ Skabbymuff*

If you think that my list is a 'total' joke, please state the specific reasons why it is so. By doing so, you'd contribute more constructively to this thread.

Cheers. :cheers2: :cheers:


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor

*@ Karakuri*

You don't have to be *rude* to prove your points! :bash: hno: :no:

Ok. 

*Re: Nagoya-Nara-Toyota-Aichi (Chubu Region)*

Nara is closer to Nagoya than Osaka, in my honest opinion.
Toyota is more associated with the Chubu region than the Kansai Region.
Aichi is, indeed, a prefecture but the prefecture's cities do form a sparsely built urban area with Nagoya. I remember perfectly well that the Chubu Centrair International Airport was completed in conjunction with the Aichi World Expo.

*Re: Mega Manila*
Mega Manila is the new Metro Manila. As you might not have known, the political borders of NCR (National Capital Region) and/or Metro Manila has been superceeded by its urban sprawl so that it now includes parts of the provinces of Laguna, Cavite, Batangas, Bulacan, and Rizal. This urban mass is, what is commonly termed (in the Philippines) as Mega Manila.​
*Re: Rio de Janeiro*
I don't know where to place it.​
*Re: Sao Paulo*
It's at number 21. ​
*Re: Hong Kong*
I didn't know what you mean by:


> Are you serious?


But if what you meant was that you totally do not agree that Hong Kong would be placed last. It should definitely be the last among the metropolitan areas on the list according to overall built-up sprawl!

And, if you meant that it's too high up the list...then how will I be able to move it down! It's in the last spot for crying out loud!​
*Re: Seoul-Incheon* 
Seoul-Incheon is massive, yes. But sprawly...hell no. Seoul-Incheon is even higher up the list than Beijing and Shanghai so what are you complaining about!​
Next time, please avoid being rude! You won't help in the constructive development of the thread!

Cheers :cheers2:


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor

*@ SaiGoNeseKiD*

If you check SHiRO's 'red maps' you'll know what I mean.

San Juan is the most sprawling urban area in Latin America with the exception of Buenos Aires and Sao Paulo.


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor

*@ Peloso*

Atlanta is one big sprawl. New Delhi doesn't have sprawly neighborhoods at all. Btw, if you base your opinions on Google Earth you might miss a lot of things that are part of Atlanta's sprawl because Atlanta's suburban neighborhoods are mostly covered by trees. But, nevertheless, Atlanta has one BIG sprawl.


----------



## tigerboy

The Cebuano Exultor said:


> Dude, I did not say my list is 100% correct. I didn't parade claiming, "Hey, look at my list 'cause it's the best there is!." I clearly pointed out in the title of the thread that it was _my_ own rankings.
> 
> So please, I beg you to be bit less tackless and rude. If you think my list is laughable don't say it bluntly like I don't even have any idea what I was listing about.
> 
> Thanks. :cheers2:
> 
> Btw, I based most of the rankings of _my_ list from SHiRO's maps.


You are quite right to complain about the tactless responses. Surely it is possible to disagree without being offensive?

That said your list is hopelessly lopsided. 

Chicagoland Number 3? Come on. Only is population densities lower than onme would find in the sahara are counted.


NY ahead of tokyo. Include only real urban density as understood in Asia or europe and tokyo is miles ahead literally adn metaphorically.

As if often the cas in international comparison you list is hamstrung by the ludicrously liberal US definition of "Urban"


----------



## Mr Bricks

The Cebuano Exultor said:


> Dude, I did not say my list is 100% correct. I didn't parade claiming, "Hey, look at my list 'cause it's the best there is!." I clearly pointed out in the title of the thread that it was _my_ own rankings.
> 
> So please, I beg you to be bit less tackless and rude. If you think my list is laughable don't say it bluntly like I don't even have any idea what I was listing about.
> 
> Thanks. :cheers2:
> 
> Btw, I based most of the rankings of _my_ list from SHiRO's maps.


I did not mean to sound rude but to make personal lists of this kind doesn´t work.


----------



## Peloso

The Cebuano Exultor said:


> Atlanta is one big sprawl. New Delhi doesn't have sprawly neighborhoods at all. Btw, if you base your opinions on Google Earth you might miss a lot of things that are part of Atlanta's sprawl because Atlanta's suburban neighborhoods are mostly covered by trees. But, nevertheless, Atlanta has one BIG sprawl.


Let me see if I got it right, you are basically saying that Atlantan suburbs are invisible because they are covered by trees? So who lives there? Smurfs? Hobbits?
Listen, if you mean those single-family houses with a 4mX4m courtyard siding a small road named, like, "Housemartin drive" or "East Bishop drive", they can be seen perfectly fine on Google Earth, as clearly as a Dutch sunbather can. The point is that, even if those houses are administratively part of Atlanta until 100 kms away (which is absurd but would not surprise me) we should first agree on what a "suburban sprawl" is. Because if the "suburban" minimum density per square km is like THAT, then Chinese cities will take the first 100 or so places on the list, practically being a nonstop sprawl from one to another.


----------



## kevinb

Karakuri said:


>


Paris looks like a flat land of ember.


----------



## klamedia

svs said:


> These figures have to be wrong or comparing apples to Oranges. There is no way that the Chicago Urban area is bigger that LA's which spreads out over parts of five counties.


Those areas are now so dense they are now considered independent metro areas. *The LA area as far metro area, is a model of what you would want your metro to look like. Contiguously dense and fairly compact.*


----------



## klamedia

UrbanSophist said:


> Did he mean population-wise or land area-wise? If he meant the latter, it seems L.A. is bigger.


Rank MSA Metropolitan Area Metropolitan Division State(s) Population 
1 *5600 New York–Northern New Jersey–Long Island *NY–NJ–PA 18,747,320 
Edison NJ 2,303,709 
Nassau–Suffolk NY 2,808,064 
Newark–Union NJ–PA 2,152,978 
New York–White Plains–Wayne NY–NJ 11,482,569 
2 *4480 Los Angeles–Long Beach–Santa Ana * CA 12,923,547 
Los Angeles–Long Beach–Glendale CA 9,935,475 
Santa Ana–Anaheim–Irvine CA 2,988,072 
3 1600 Chicago–Naperville–Joliet IL–IN–WI 9,443,356 
Chicago–Naperville–Joliet IL 7,882,729 
Gary IN 697,401 
Lake County–Kenosha County IL–WI 863,226 
4 *6160 Philadelphia–Camden–Wilmington PA–NJ–DE–MD* 5,823,233 
Camden NJ 1,245,902 
Philadelphia PA 3,890,181 
Wilmington DE–NJ–MD 687,150 
5 2800 Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington TX 5,819,475 
Dallas–Plano–Irving TX 3,893,123 
Fort Worth–Arlington TX 1,926,352 
6 *5000 Miami–Fort Lauderdale–Miami Beach FL *5,422,200 
Fort Lauderdale–Pompano Beach–Deerfield Beach FL 1,777,638 
Miami–Miami Beach–Kendall FL 2,376,014 
West Palm Beach–Boca Raton–Boynton Beach FL 1,268,548 
7 3360 Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown TX 5,280,077 
8 511 Washington–Arlington–Alexandria DC–VA–MD–WV 5,214,666 
Bethesda–Frederick–Gaithersburg MD 1,148,284 
Washington–Arlington–Alexandria DC–MD–VA–WV 4,066,382 
9 520 Atlanta–Sandy Springs–Marietta GA 4,917,717 
10 2160 Detroit–Warren–Livonia MI 4,488,335 
Detroit–Livonia–Dearborn MI 1,998,217 
Warren–Troy–Farmington Hills MI 2,490,118 
11 1120 Boston–Cambridge–Quincy MA–NH 4,411,835 
Boston–Quincy MA 1,800,432 
Cambridge–Newton–Framingham MA 1,459,011 
Essex County MA 738,301 
Rockingham County–Strafford County NH 414,091 
12 *7360 San Francisco–Oakland–Fremont CA *4,152,688 
Oakland–Fremont–Hayward CA 2,466,692 
San Francisco–San Mateo–Redwood City CA 1,685,996 
13 *6780 Riverside–San Bernardino–Ontario CA *3,909,954 *(Riverside and San Bernardino have their own MSA, they are not part of the LA Metro Area)*
14 *6200 Phoenix–Mesa–Scottsdale AZ *3,865,077 
15 *4600 Seattle–Tacoma–Bellevue WA *3,203,314 
Seattle–Bellevue–Everett WA 2,449,527 
Tacoma WA 753,787 
16 *5120 Minneapolis–St. Paul–Bloomington MN-WI *3,142,779 
17 *7320 San Diego–Carlsbad–San Marcos CA *2,933,462 
18 *7040 St. Louis MO–IL *2,778,518 
19 720 Baltimore–Towson MD 2,655,675 
20 *8280 Tampa–St. Petersburg–Clearwater FL *2,647,658 
21 *6280 Pittsburgh PA–WV *2,386,074 
22 2080 Denver–Aurora CO 2,359,994 
23 1680 Cleveland–Elyria–Mentor OH 2,126,318 
24 *6440 Portland–Vancouver–Beaverton OR–WA* 2,095,861 
25 3200 Cincinnati–Middletown OH 2,070,441 

For a complete list, see List of United States metropolitan areas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_metropolitan_area
simple elementary findings
http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/phc-t29.html

*Is the bias against LA that fierce on this board that idiots refuse te give in to the US Census data? Truly a sad day in metro area ranking.*hno:


----------



## Karakuri

The Cebuano Exultor said:


> You don't have to be *rude* to prove your points! :bash: hno: :no:
> 
> Ok.
> 
> *Re: Nagoya-Nara-Toyota-Aichi (Chubu Region)*
> 
> Nara is closer to Nagoya than Osaka, in my honest opinion.
> Toyota is more associated with the Chubu region than the Kansai Region.
> Aichi is, indeed, a prefecture but the prefecture's cities do form a sparsely built urban area with Nagoya. I remember perfectly well that the Chubu Centrair International Airport was completed in conjunction with the Aichi World Expo.
> 
> *Re: Mega Manila*
> Mega Manila is new Metro Manila. As you might not have known, the political borders of NCR (National Capital Region) and/or Metro Manila has been superceeded by its urban sprawl so that it now includes parts of the provinces of Laguna, Cavite, Batangas, Bulacan, and Rizal. This urban mass is, what is commonly termed (in the Philippines) as Mega Manila.​
> *Re: Rio de Janeiro*
> I don't know where to place it.​
> *Re: Sao Paulo*
> It's at number 21. ​
> *Re: Hong Kong*
> I didn't know what you mean by:
> 
> But if what you meant was that you totally do not agree that Hong Kong would be placed last. It should definitely be the last among the the metropolitan areas on he list according to overall built-up sprawl!
> 
> And, if you meant that it's too high up the list...then how will I be able to move it down! It's in the last spot for crying out loud!​
> *Re: Seoul-Incheon*
> Seoul-Incheon is masive, yes. But sprawly...hell no. Seoul-Incheon is even higher up the list than Beijing and Shanghai so what are you complaining about!​
> Next time, please avoid being rude! You won't help in the constructive development of the thread!
> 
> Cheers :cheers2:



I'm not beeing rude actually! I don't know what I said you took this bad, but I didn't mean to be aggressive, I just laughed when I read your Nagoya thing.

In "your opinion" Nara is closer to Nagoya, but just take a look at this map and check the truth: it's pretty far from Nagoya (2 hours by train for example), and quite close to Osaka. This ain't an "opinion" thing, it's a fact.








Of course Toyota is in the Chubu region, but what I mean is that there ain't no continuous urban link between Nagoya and Toyota, there is true countryside between them, so Toyota isn't in Nagoya's urban area.
Aichi is sparsely built as the whole south coast is. I mean, if you think that Aichi is one single urban area, you may think that Japan, from Tokyo to the far western Fukuoka is a continuous urban area...should it be so, it would be no match for any city in the world.
By the way, I've lived in Nagoya quite long enough to know what I'm saying.

Yeah I meant Hong Kong has no place on Earth's biggest cities list.

Finally, Tokyo's urban area comprises Yokohama and Chiba to form a huge 32 million inhabitants urban entity, beating NYC and any city on this planet.

:cheers:


----------



## GENIUS LOCI

coth said:


> By fictional metro (I would not use such a term for Europe) it's going to be
> Moscow - 20mln (including only registered population) + 3,5mln estimately of unregistered
> London - 17mln
> Milan - 7,5mln
> [/url]


Mmmm... 23 mio for Moscow seems to be a bit too much

Yuo're right about London metro and maybe even Paris one is 11/12 mio

Anyway Milan is always at the 6th place


----------



## Fede_Milan

coth said:


> Pictures was provided already. All of them at the same zoom.


Yeah pictures were provided already and Milan agglomeration seems to me kinda big and sprawled. I guess it's a matter of point of view (literally in this case). 




coth said:


> By agglomeration:
> two good sources
> http://citypopulation.de/World.html


As for your reliable source...wanna bet that our French friends ain't gonna be that happy with Paris having a population of 9,950,000 inhabitants?


----------



## Metropolitan

None of your picture are at scale Genius Loci.

As for London metropolitan area reaching 17 million, this is the thickest urban legend in this forum. If London metro area represents 17 million people, the Netherlands/Belgium/Western Germany represents a single metro area of 30 million people. The saddest is that this urban legend is based on nothing outside an old paper talking about a region of 17 million people around London. No serious website has never used that figure _ever_.

Actually, anyone using that figure don't know what a metropolitan area is about. A metropolitan area consists in two elements:
- and urban core (urban area)
- a periurban belt (surrounding _rural_ areas)

Indeed metropolitan areas have been invented in order to measure the phenomenon of periurbanization (working in the city and living in the forest). It hasn't been invented to make cities bigger than they are.

Considering that the London urban area represents 8.5 million, that would mean that half of the population of the its metro area ( the other 8.5 million) would actually live in surrounding rural areas (i.e in the forest). Oxford, Cambridge, Brighton or Ipswich are not what I would define as rural areas. Those are all _cities_ having their own metropolitan areas, just like any other _city_.

You can put New York City in Belgium, that wouldn't make it a metro area of 50 million people simply because it would be close to Rotterdam, Amsterdam, Antwerp, Lille, Aachen and Cologne.


----------



## GENIUS LOCI

Metropolitan said:


> None of your picture are at scale Genius Loci.


Again... :sleepy:

They are on scale!
I just made a mistake for Istanbul in one of last posts, and I underlined it by myself

For everything else I posted: it is on scale

Don't you believe it?

Check then http://maps.live.com/

And please, if you really are sure I posted the wrong scale, would you be so kind to show us the maps 'correctly' on scale?

I'm tired of people who say I provided wrong scale and don't show then the right scale (obviously they didn't: mine is right)


----------



## coth

GENIUS LOCI said:


> Mmmm... 23 mio for Moscow seems to be a bit too much
> 
> Yuo're right about London metro and maybe even Paris one is 11/12 mio
> 
> Anyway Milan is always at the 6th place





Metropolitan said:


> None of your picture are at scale Genius Loci.
> 
> As for London metropolitan area reaching 17 million, this is the thickest urban legend in this forum. If London metro area represents 17 million people, the Netherlands/Belgium/Western Germany represents a single metro area of 30 million people. The saddest is that this urban legend is based on nothing outside an old paper talking about a region of 17 million people around London. No serious website has never used that figure _ever_.
> 
> Actually, anyone using that figure don't know what a metropolitan area is about. A metropolitan area consists in two elements:
> - and urban core (urban area)
> - a periurban belt (surrounding _rural_ areas)
> 
> Indeed metropolitan areas have been invented in order to measure the phenomenon of periurbanization (working in the city and living in the forest). It hasn't been invented to make cities bigger than they are.
> 
> Considering that the London urban area represents 8.5 million, that would mean that half of the population of the its metro area ( the other 8.5 million) would actually live in surrounding rural areas (i.e in the forest). Oxford, Cambridge, Brighton or Ipswich are not what I would define as rural areas. Those are all _cities_ having their own metropolitan areas, just like any other _city_.
> 
> You can put New York City in Belgium, that wouldn't make it a metro area of 50 million people simply because it would be close to Rotterdam, Amsterdam, Antwerp, Lille, Aachen and Cologne.



20mln is for metro area, so as 17mln for london. but yet again - "metro area" is a fictional term for europe.

here 15m scale for moscow

blue - main urban core
red - smaller agglomeration (something like this was used by citypopulation)
yellow - larger agglomeration (something like this was used by the world gazetteer i suppose. in my opinion it's more correct)
orange - some farest points of metro area


----------



## Metropolitan

GENIUS LOCI said:


> Again... :sleepy:
> 
> They are on scale!
> I just made a mistake for Istanbul in one of last posts, and I underlined it by myself
> 
> For everything else I posted: it is on scale
> 
> Don't you believe it?
> 
> Check then http://maps.live.com/
> 
> And please, if you really are sure I posted the wrong scale, would you be so kind to show us the maps 'correctly' on scale?
> 
> I'm tired of people who say I provided wrong scale and don't show then the right scale (obviously they didn't: mine is right)


Your London map has 135 pixels for 8 miles (that makes 16.875 pixels for 1 mile). Your Paris map has 144 pixels for 9 miles (which means 16 pixels for 1 mile). As such, your London map is 94 km wide, whereas your Paris map is 99 km wide.

Here's the result when they are both at 16 pixels for 1 mile. Just check on the bottom right there's a scale, you'll realize that I'm right.


----------



## GENIUS LOCI

^^
Are you kidding me?


That was the 'difference' mapslive itself gave

London was the only one with an 8 miles 'meter' while Milan and Paris had 9 miles I thought it was implicit a little difference for London one at that scale

Even because I provided to post Milan, London and Paris in a biggest scale (having 15 miles as referring point) with no differences, big ones or little ones

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=11756541&postcount=275

However... never mind


----------



## cello1974

OMG!!!! If you make the same generous radius around Sao Paulo ( would be SP-Rio Megalopolis) it would be 40 mln+. Pearl River Delta is more than 60mln, and the same around Tokyo or NYC would be 40 mln+ also. As well as Shanghai would be + or less 50 mln!!!! :sly:


----------



## coth

^Biggest megalopolis is the Blue Banana (Milan-London), second is Pacific Belt (Tokyo-Fukuoka) and third is Yangtze River Delta


----------



## gladisimo

Metropolitan's being a bit anal huh... anyway, radius is such a good measure if you compare coastal cities with inland cities. Cities vary so much by definitions, etc. that its impossible to compare them objectively, only relatively.


----------



## cello1974

coth said:


> ^Biggest megalopolis is the Blue Banana (Milan-London), second is Pacific Belt (Tokyo-Fukuoka) and third is Yangtze River Delta


Milan-London cannot be considered a megalopolis, since there are way too unpopulated areas in between,....


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor

*@ cello1974*

I partly agree as to how coth ranked the world's megalopolises in terms of population. 

He, however, missed the Northeastern Corridor of the United States (the original megalopolis) and the Pearl River Delta. 

Furthermore, the Yangzte River Delta isn't a well-defined megalopolis as of yet. But if it would be included nonetheless, then it would be first with 136 million people.

The list would be:

1. The Blue Banana (98-100 million people)
[Southern Britain-Central France (Paris not included)-Benelux Areas-Switzerland-Northern Italy]

2. Tokaido Rail Corridor or "The Japanese Pacific Belt Megalopolis" (89 million people)
[Greater Tokyo (Kanto Region)--Nagoya--Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto (Kansai Region)--Fukuoka]

3. Northeastern Corridor "The Megalopolis" (55-60 million people)
[Boston--New York Tri-State Area--Philadelphia--Washington D.C.-Baltimore Metroplex]

4. Pearl River Delta Region (40-45 million people)
[Guangzhou-Zhuhai -Macau-Dongguan-Shenzhen-Hong Kong]

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

Re: Your concern that the Blue Banana isn't a well-defined megalopolis.

Well, for one thing, their isn't a standard worldwide measure even for metropolitan areas. That means that the definition and recognition puzzle [as to which is a megalopolis and which is not] becomes really confusing. However, in the past discussions in this forum, most conceded that, despite having much sparser average built-up density than the "Japanese Pacific Belt" or "The Megalopolis", the Blue Banana could still be considered as one megalopolis due mainly to the existence of a well-defined and well-developed transportation infrastructure and network linkages between the points of population settlements. 

This particular attribute would set it apart from other large areas of similar densities [such as Eastern China and South-Asia] since these similarly large semi-megalopolises in East China and South-Asia do not have the seemless mesh of railway networks and expressways/autobahns that are present in the Blue Banana.

Cheers. :cheers2:


----------



## Kenni

LA Metro is bigger than "Chicagoland" Some of those figures presented here are weird. Just the Urbanized area (lined in red) of LA surpasses it.


----------



## poshbakerloo

I think some people are getting metro populations mixed up with 'greater area' populations e.g. London pop: 7.6 million...Greater London 8.3 million...London metro pop: 13.9 million...

And that is jammed onto a island the size of NY state, with several other million+ cities!


----------



## Justme

poshbakerloo said:


> I think some people are getting metro populations mixed up with 'greater area' populations e.g. London pop: 7.6 million...Greater London 8.3 million...London metro pop: 13.9 million...
> 
> And that is jammed onto a island the size of NY state, with several other million+ cities!


But in London's case it is actually confusing as the official name of the city proper of London is actually "Greater London", which is usually the term for a wider area. In London's case it was called that due to the amalgamation of other council areas.

So, in London's case, making the mistake is generally forgiven. Unless someone is a regular reader of this forum and then should know better ;O)


----------



## Concrete Stereo

I'd say, get the Metropolitan World Atlas (--> http://www.010.nl/catalogue/book.php?id=548#) ... it's beautifully made and does exactly this: compare 101 metroplises on the same scale (not only in map, but also in population, crime, etc etc).


----------



## Tubeman

Why dredge up a 3 year old thread? :gaah:


----------

