# Biggest urban expanse



## NN (Jun 1, 2006)

The "newer demographia figures" use National Statistics Office figures.For the figures I quoted they use their own estimates in order to compare like for like. I have never said that National Statistics Office figures are wrong. I am saying that they follow a different criteria to French figures and US figures. If you don't believe me get a map.


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

Riton said:


> Also, the figures in the newer demographia publications match with the National Statistics figures.


That's a very interesting document. On page 65 of the document, it lists all the world's urban areas ranked by urban land area. So I guess now we have the answer for the whole world.

According to the table on page 65, the top three in the world is:
1- New York: 8,683 km² (3,353 sq. miles)
2- Tokyo: 6,993 km² (2,700 sq. miles)
3- Chicago: 5,498 km² (2,123 sq. miles)
...
...
14- Paris: 2,723 km² (1,051 sq. miles)
...
...
37- London: 1,623 km² (627 sq. miles)


----------



## okletsgo (Jun 2, 2006)

brisavoine said:


> Could people who post to this thread care to read documents before writing silly things? The London urban area defined by the UK National Statistics Office is NOT the same thing as the administrative territory of Greater London. Greater London covers 1,579 km2, of which hundreds of sq. km. are unbuilt land (most notably in the borough of Bromley), whereas the London urban area covers 1,623 km2 and includes the built-up areas of Greater London PLUS the contiguous built-up areas located in Surrey, Hertfordshire, etc.


Your having a 'larf mate
this is the urban area of London and its surroundings, there is not hundreds of sqkm of unbuilt land within Greater London
Exculding outlying cut of areas you are telling me this is 1,623sqkms, when the main bulk in the middle is around that sizes itself????


----------



## NN (Jun 1, 2006)

brisavoine said:


> That's a very interesting document. On page 65 of the document, it lists all the world's urban areas ranked by urban land area. So I guess now we have the answer for the whole world.
> 
> According to the table on page 65, the top three in the world is:
> 1- New York: 8,683 km² (3,353 sq. miles)
> ...



As I said in an earlier post, these figures all come from different sources and therefore are not comparing the same thing. Look at the figures for population density for some of the bigger US urban areas. At these levels of density London would stretch from Brighton to Birmingham.


----------



## okletsgo (Jun 2, 2006)

this map shows the extent of greater london with your hundreds of sqkms of undeveloped land 








this map shows it scaled to los angeles








the point being that the figures you've quoted for London are only including the central bulk of London mainly within the M25 while with other cities all out lying areas are being included.


----------



## okletsgo (Jun 2, 2006)

brisavoine said:


> That's a very interesting document. On page 65 of the document, it lists all the world's urban areas ranked by urban land area. So I guess now we have the answer for the whole world.
> 
> According to the table on page 65, the top three in the world is:
> 1- New York: 8,683 km2 (3,353 sq. miles)
> ...


You only have to look at the poulation density figures to see that list is all out of shape
New York = 5,300 sq km Tokyo = 12,300 sq km Paris=9,300sq km and London =13,200 sq km , since when is London more dense than Tokyo and Paris and almost 3xdenser than New York????
Obviously the New York, Paris and London figures for Urban area are being worked out in a different fashion


----------



## NN (Jun 1, 2006)

As the maps from "okletsgo" show London spreads considerably further than the figures from the National Statistics Office show. This is even more evident on the ground. It is possible to drive from one side of Reading in Berkshire, through central London to the other side of Southend in Essex whilst being continually surrounded by built on land, whether urban, suburban or industrial.


----------



## london-b (Jul 31, 2004)

okletsgo said:


> Your having a 'larf mate
> this is the urban area of London and its surroundings, there is not hundreds of sqkm of unbuilt land within Greater London
> Exculding outlying cut of areas you are telling me this is 1,623sqkms, when the main bulk in the middle is around that sizes itself????


And then inbetween those larger urban areas there are 100's of villages not shown, together they would make up quite a large area to add to this.


----------



## okletsgo (Jun 2, 2006)

Since central Paris is far more dense than London, and so like wize is New York and Tokyo, and since population density is a simple sum were we divide total area by total population we must conclude that for London to end up as denser in population, that the urban areas being counted for Paris New york and Tokyo are being far far more generous than the area being allowed for London.
Therefore the figures do not accuratly compare the true relative sizes of similiarly built up areas.


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

Guys, I strongly suggest you read the famous fable by Jean de La Fontaine called The Toad Who Wanted to be as Big as the Ox:

"Once upon a time a toad saw an ox in a meadow and was envious of its huge bulk. So it swelled out its body till all the wrinkles disappeared and then asked its children if it was now fatter than the ox. 'No', they said. With a still greater effort it stretched its skin tights, and asked which was the bigger now. 'The ox', they answered. At last it got cross, and making frantic efforts to blow itself out still more, it burst itself and died.

Moral: For the weak to try to imitate the strong is courting destruction."


----------



## NN (Jun 1, 2006)

brisavoine said:


> Guys, I strongly suggest you read the famous fable by Jean de La Fontaine called The Toad Who Wanted to be as Big as the Ox:
> 
> "Once upon a time a toad saw an ox in a meadow and was envious of its huge bulk. So it swelled out its body till all the wrinkles disappeared and then asked its children if it was now fatter than the ox. 'No', they said. With a still greater effort it stretched its skin tights, and asked which was the bigger now. 'The ox', they answered. At last it got cross, and making frantic efforts to blow itself out still more, it burst itself and died.
> 
> Moral: For the weak to try to imitate the strong is courting destruction."


I strongly suggest you learn some basic mathematics.


----------



## la bestia kuit (Aug 10, 2005)

Greater Buenos Aires: 
N-S: 33 miles E-W: 39 miles
2.266 Km2


----------



## bayviews (Mar 3, 2006)

Obviously, NYC wins this rather dubious distinction.


----------



## staff (Oct 23, 2004)

What SHiRO wrote on the first page is correct. 
That's all we need, and the thread could be closed...


----------



## Cyril (Sep 11, 2002)

As for Paris, the longest continuous urban expanse is nearly 100 km / 63 Miles from Rosny sur Seine (North West) to Melun (south east).


----------



## Kiss the Rain (Apr 2, 2006)

Got to be tokyo, at least it fits the the term "urban" unlike many people counts the bloody suburbs in american cities and pretend it to be urban and therefore making them with biggest urban expanse. Face it, the actual urban expanse of most of them is just the downtown and maybe a bit of surrounding. It takes like 10 minutes to walk through LA downtown for heaven sake.


----------



## HelloMoto163 (Aug 13, 2005)




----------



## The Cebuano Exultor (Aug 1, 2005)

*Tokyo...Tokyo! Yokoso! Tokyo "Great City"*

Can you be kind enough to post Tokyo's too. Thanks.


----------



## Unsing (Apr 15, 2006)

from NASA World Wind

*New York*


*Tokyo*


*London*


*Paris*


----------



## jtownman (Jan 31, 2003)

Tokyo wins.


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor (Aug 1, 2005)

*TOKYO OMG!*

Yeah, *Tokyo wins Bigtime!* Those satellite images truly show the urban extent of the mega-monster that is Tokyo. Using Googlemaps, New York Tri-State Area seems larger than Tokyo but with these NASA images, Tokyo is the undisputed "King of *Urban * Expanse". OMG!


----------



## staff (Oct 23, 2004)

SHiRO has made maps of various urban areas in the world which are to scale. 
New York and Los Angeles has a larger agglomeration than Tokyo.


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor (Aug 1, 2005)

*Yeah...*

Yeah, I saw that, too. I even have it saved in my * My Pictures * folder of my PC. However, my point is that in some sources such as SHiRO's and Googlemaps, one can clearly see that the New York Tr-State Area and the Greater Los Angeles Area have larger built-up sprawl than Tokyo (Tokyo being only the third largest) but how much of that red thing that SHiRO did for Los Angeles and New York (as well as Tokyo and practically all the major agglomerations worldwide) really qualifies to be considered as *urban*, as in, not suburban, exurban, etc. I can say that roughly 80-85% of the red thing SHiRO did for Tokyo is *urban * in the sense of the word *urban* (not only means un-suburban or un-exurban but also means highly-dense area in terms of both population and infrastructure (includes transportation infrastructure).

Since, NASA's satellite imagery is, probably, more reliable when one talks about *urban* built-up areas (judging from the fact that, in those NASA satellite images, New York does not sprawl as much as Tokyo since most of that sprawl is suburban and exurban density/type level sprawl than basically urban built-up areas so that they appear to be green or semi-green which makes one concede to the fact that Tokyo's wholistic and unabated *grey areas/urban sprawl * are, indeed, the larger urban monster) and since the thread talks about which human settlement/agglomeration has the largest "urban expanse" (not suburban, exurban expanse) then Tokyo wins this one. 

If Tokyo had the same density that New York's outer suburbs or exurbs have, the entire Honshu Island would probably be covered in its built-up sprawl (not to mention the adjoining sprawls comprising the rest of the Japanese Megalopolis: *Nagoya-Nara-Toyota * and *Osaka-Kobe-Kansai-Kyoto*).


----------



## coth (Oct 16, 2003)

HelloMoto163 said:


>


Moscow is not even 20% of its urban area on this map.
core is 40x35km. farest parts of urban area are within over 160 km from each other.
http://maps.google.com/?q=moscow&ll=55.737935,37.646027&spn=0.4979,1.60675&t=k&om=1

you picture looks like it's from end of 60's


----------



## 909 (Oct 22, 2003)

I don't know if this is true, but according to wikipedia:



> Kryvyi Rih (Ukrainian: Кривий Ріг, Russian: Кривой Рог, Krivoy Rog) is a city in central Ukraine, situated in the Dnipropetrovska Oblast, to the southwest of Dnipropetrovsk, at the confluence of the Inhulets and Saksahan rivers. Population 632,100 (as of 2004)
> 
> Kryvyi Rih is arguably the main steel industry city of the Eastern Europe, being a large globally-important metallurgical centre in the Kryvbas iron mining region.
> 
> ...


----------



## coth (Oct 16, 2003)

Greater Sochi is 145km long. So longer.


----------



## 909 (Oct 22, 2003)

coth said:


> Greater Sochi is 145km long. So longer.


Aha, quite impressive. 



> Sochi (Russian: Со́чи) is the most popular Russian resort city, situated in Krasnodar Krai, near the Russian border with Abkhazia. It is located in a spectacular natural setting with the snow-capped peaks of the Caucasus Mountains overlooking the gentle shores of the Black Sea. At 147 km, Greater Sochi is the second longest city in the world. As of the 2002 Census, it had population of 328,809.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sochi


It's the second longest city in the world, but what is (or could be) the longest in the world?


----------



## Philip Cronin (Nov 7, 2003)

coth said:


> Greater Sochi is 145km long. So longer.


That's just down to arbitary political boundaries. 145km is more than the distance from Bexhill to Southampton on the south coast of England. The coastal settlements on that stretch have a combined population of around 2 million, but no one claims they form a single major city.


----------



## Tom_Green (Sep 4, 2004)

One look at the satelitte images is enough to see which city is the largest. 
Only blind people would hide behind some statistics. 
Tokyo has the largest urban expanse from the 4 cities.

It would be nice to see more images from space to compare. Mexico City, Los Angeles, Seoul, Shanghai, Chongquing and Sao Paulo.


----------



## LordChaos80 (May 10, 2006)

Don't u think that there are more asian, SE-asian cities which should be considered in this discussion as well? I am thinking of the big chinese cities like Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Wuhan... as well as of Jakarta, Manila, Bangkok and some indian cities, too... When I see what is actually counted as Greater London, -Paris or -Chicago, it seems that the ox fable posted before was not too misplaced... Just my two cents. (and no, I am not an asian guy, I am German...)

edit:Hey, Tom... u were faster than me. I shouldn't watch TV while writing...  Oh, and a word about Chongqing: It should be seen more as a province than as a city. The actual urban area is still much smaller than that of Guangzhou, Wuhan or Tianjin, not to speak of Shanghai and Beijing...


----------



## okletsgo (Jun 2, 2006)

The Cebuano Exultor said:


> Since, NASA's satellite imagery is, probably, more reliable when one talks about *urban* built-up areas (judging from the fact that, in those NASA satellite images, New York does not sprawl as much as Tokyo since most of that sprawl is suburban and exurban density/type level sprawl than basically urban built-up areas so that they appear to be green or semi-green which makes one concede to the fact that Tokyo's wholistic and unabated *grey areas/urban sprawl * are, indeed, the larger urban monster) and since the thread talks about which human settlement/agglomeration has the largest "urban expanse" (not suburban, exurban expanse) then Tokyo wins this one.



I wouldn't read too much into the colours on the satalite maps as the greys largely reflet the colours of the roofs of buildings and colours of the roads.In europe only buildings such as office buildings and a few houses tend to have flat roofs, which show up as a brighter grey on the maps, houses in both Paris and London tend to have dark grey pitched roofs, which makes them contrast less with the back ground and makes them harder to see.In Central New York and Tokyo buildings tend to have flat roofs and show up more easilly, only when you get to New yorks suburbs to the roofs change to mainly pitched.
Just zoom in on google mpas and you will see this.
Having said that Tokyo has obviously the biggest dense urban area are new York the most spread out.
Most asian cities are dense are even though they have large populations they are rarly spread out.


----------



## schreiwalker (May 13, 2005)

okletsgo said:


> I wouldn't read too much into the colours on the satalite maps as the greys largely reflet the colours of the roofs of buildings and colours of the roads.In europe only buildings such as office buildings and a few houses tend to have flat roofs, which show up as a brighter grey on the maps, houses in both Paris and London tend to have dark grey pitched roofs, which makes them contrast less with the back ground and makes them harder to see.In Central New York and Tokyo buildings tend to have flat roofs and show up more easilly, only when you get to New yorks suburbs to the roofs change to mainly pitched.
> Just zoom in on google mpas and you will see this.
> Having said that Tokyo has obviously the biggest dense urban area are new York the most spread out.
> Most asian cities are dense are even though they have large populations they are rarly spread out.


tokyo definitely wins.

i don't think pitched roofs have anything to do with the color. the color of each pixel at that zoom level is just an average of the colors within the pixel. If it is denser, its greyer. If its less dense, more pixels are green. The metro areas of London and Paris combined aren't as big as New York's, so its not that surprising that it has greater sprawl. That they're even comparable shows just how dense those two smaller cities are. The populations of New York, Paris and London's metro areas are only slightly bigger than tokyo's, so its also no surprise that Tokyo wins hands down. 

and for the record, they have plenty of pitched roofs on houses in tokyo. and Long island (which shows up pretty grey) is the original home of the pitched roof and white picket fence.


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor (Aug 1, 2005)

*@ okletsgo*

Yes, exactly. That is what I am saying. Tokyo is the answer to the question that this thread is asking for. The question is which human settlement/ built-up agglomeration has the "biggest urban expanse", then the answer would definitely be Tokyo. If the question were which human settlement/built-up agglomeration has the "biggest sprawl" then New York wins hands down. :yes: 

Cheers


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor (Aug 1, 2005)

*@ schreiwalker*

Well, forgive me if I misunderstood your post but did you just say that New York, London and Paris have bigger metropolitan populations than Tokyo?

Actually, Tokyo is the largest metropolitan area in terms of population with 33 million people or 36 million people living within its urban expanse (depending on what method is used in the census count). New York, the world's 4th largest metropolitan area in population has only 22 million people.

I also think that okletsgo's argument, that although New York seems to appear smaller or have fewer grey areas it does not reflect the real extend of its sprawl (i.e. suburban and exurban areas), is true. I, too, concede to the fact that in New York suburbs and exurbs are way sparsely built-up and way-sprawled (reflecting the very opposite of New York City itself, particularly the bourough of Manhattan) and are usually covered with trees that when seen through a satellite image it appears to be green and not grey. In short, Tokyo is the answer for this thread's question. New York is the answer if the question was, "which human settlement/ built-up agglomeration has the biggest sprawl in overall terms?".

Cheers


----------



## okletsgo (Jun 2, 2006)

schreiwalker said:


> tokyo definitely wins.
> 
> i don't think pitched roofs have anything to do with the color. the color of each pixel at that zoom level is just an average of the colors within the pixel. If it is denser, its greyer. If its less dense, more pixels are green. The metro areas of London and Paris combined aren't as big as New York's, so its not that surprising that it has greater sprawl. That they're even comparable shows just how dense those two smaller cities are. The populations of New York, Paris and London's metro areas are only slightly bigger than tokyo's, so its also no surprise that Tokyo wins hands down.
> 
> and for the record, they have plenty of pitched roofs on houses in tokyo. and Long island (which shows up pretty grey) is the original home of the pitched roof and white picket fence.


Of course the colour and type of roof effects what we see in these images as does tree coverage, its impossible not to.If you zoom in on Google maps,roofs in New York proper are moslty light grey and flat as are Tokyos, whilst in London and Paris they are dark grey and pitched, this does effect the way the images look as for example Paris looks as dark grey as London even though it is denser.


----------



## SerfCity (Mar 9, 2006)

Here's one of Buenos Aires at night taken from the International Space Station (ISS)










> *Caption*
> 
> Buenos Aires is one of the larger cities seen by orbiting crews. Twelve million people, almost one third of all Argentines, live in this city, often called the Paris of the South. Taken very early on the morning of Saturday, February 8, 2003, from the International Space Station with the handheld eclectronic still camera, this remarkably clear image shows the lights of Argentina’s capital city.
> 
> ...


----------



## schreiwalker (May 13, 2005)

The Cebuano Exultor said:


> Well, forgive me if I misunderstood your post but did you just say that New York, London and Paris have bigger metropolitan populations than Tokyo?


If you see the line above that, I meant that when you combine the cities together. poor wording on my part. It seems to me that only a city like mexico city or shanghai could rival tokyo's urban expanse.


----------



## schreiwalker (May 13, 2005)

okletsgo said:


> Of course the colour and type of roof effects what we see in these images as does tree coverage, its impossible not to.If you zoom in on Google maps,roofs in New York proper are moslty light grey and flat as are Tokyos, whilst in London and Paris they are dark grey and pitched, this does effect the way the images look as for example Paris looks as dark grey as London even though it is denser.


I dunno. I feel that flat roofs are just a question of density in any of those cities (having spent time in all of them). I did look at the roofs of paris, and they do have a lot of reds and dark greys. though tokyo has many different colors as well.


----------



## I*LOVE*NY (Jan 20, 2005)




----------



## London_2006 (Feb 9, 2003)




----------



## Kiss the Rain (Apr 2, 2006)

holy crap i never knew moscows so small


----------



## Küsel (Sep 16, 2004)

Kiss the Rain said:


> holy crap i never knew moscows so small


Berlin has one of the lowest, Paris and Moscow one of the highest densities in the continent.


----------



## tigerboy (Jun 7, 2006)

The reality is that it is impossible to adequately compare giben differing definitions of whatr is Urban.

I suggest an agreed population per sq. km below which an area cannot be called urban adn a figure for each city only comprising the contiguopus areas which meet this lower limit.

Some of the previous figures just seem bizarre. NYC at over 3,000 sq Miles compared to London at 600!!! NYC 5 times bigger !!!! No way is that so. Much of Long Island is no more urban than Kent or Sussex yet is presumably included whereas places like Brighton and Canterbury which are satellites of London are not.


----------



## coth (Oct 16, 2003)

Kiss the Rain said:


> holy crap i never knew moscows so small


this picture just outdated some 30-40 years ago. main urban core of moscow is 40x35km.
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=8727647&postcount=44


----------



## tigerboy (Jun 7, 2006)

okletsgo said:


> I wouldn't read too much into the colours on the satalite maps as the greys largely reflet the colours of the roofs of buildings and colours of the roads.In europe only buildings such as office buildings and a few houses tend to have flat roofs, which show up as a brighter grey on the maps, houses in both Paris and London tend to have dark grey pitched roofs, which makes them contrast less with the back ground and makes them harder to see.In Central New York and Tokyo buildings tend to have flat roofs and show up more easilly, only when you get to New yorks suburbs to the roofs change to mainly pitched.
> Just zoom in on google mpas and you will see this.
> Having said that Tokyo has obviously the biggest dense urban area are new York the most spread out.
> Most asian cities are dense are even though they have large populations they are rarly spread out.


I think this is a very good point. I have spent many years in both Paris and london and areas I know to be relatively heavily populated suburban areas show up green on those NASA maps. Anyone who knows London will know there is a deliberate attempt to deurbanise the look by faux rurality in colouring houses and roofs and this is true of Paris as well.

New Jersey,Long island Westchester show up green as well. I don't doubt Tokyo is biggest but those maps do need to be treated with some circumspection and all is not necessarilly as it seems.


----------



## Un known (Feb 7, 2006)

Coth, there are huge gaps between districts in Moscow. There are lots of empty spaces, storage spaces and parks. 40% of the area is green. 

I think that Tokyo and La have the biggest urban areas. LA is very spread out. Tokyo is a part of the industial belt in Japan which is almost continuously urban.


----------



## coth (Oct 16, 2003)

of course tokyo is biggest. i'm just saying that map of moscow urban area is outdated in 60's. now moscow urban area is at least 3 times bigger and much more dense.
and 40% is figure for province. in moscow it is 10%.


----------



## PhillyPhilly90 (Aug 12, 2005)

Ok, if it were based on NASA maps...then Los Angeles would look larger than Tokyo. Much of L.A.'s sprawl is exposed...unlike New York. To me, New York is the largest build-up area in the world...u can't define urban. Tokyo is definitely the biggest dense urban area in the world...but New York is the biggest build-up area. 

Those NASA images aren't fooling me...much of New York's sprawl is covered by trees and it's also very hilly, but indeed, it expands out more than any other urban place.


----------



## silly thing (Aug 9, 2004)

hey the NASA satellite picture underestimates the size of tokyo's unban expanse

this is the realm the nasa pic has shown









and this is the actual size


----------



## tigerboy (Jun 7, 2006)

PhillyPhilly90 said:


> Ok, if it were based on NASA maps...then Los Angeles would look larger than Tokyo. Much of L.A.'s sprawl is exposed...unlike New York. To me, New York is the largest build-up area in the world...u can't define urban. Tokyo is definitely the biggest dense urban area in the world...but New York is the biggest build-up area.
> 
> Those NASA images aren't fooling me...much of New York's sprawl is covered by trees and it's also very hilly, but indeed, it expands out more than any other urban place.


Philly I think if you look at the CMSA and look at counties like EG Ulster NY, Dutchess NY, Part of Suffolk NY, Ocean NJ etc the reason the areas are tree covered is because the pop density is by no possible definition urban as understood by anyone outside the U.S. census office. The truly urban area extends into Nassau on the east, up into Westchester and across to the NJ towns but little further. many hundreds of sq. miles of that bloated CMSA is by no Asian or European definition understandable as "urban". I say this purely as an opinion and in no way to be discutatious or argumentative. I simply think that much of that area is not truly urban.


----------



## Riton (Feb 8, 2006)

tigerboy said:


> The truly urban area extends into Nassau on the east, up into Westchester and across to the NJ towns but little further. many hundreds of sq. miles of that bloated CMSA is by no Asian or European definition understandable as "urban". I say this purely as an opinion and in no way to be discutatious or argumentative. I simply think that much of that area is not truly urban.


The entirety of the New York CSA is by no means urban. Only about 1/3 of the surface area is classified by the US Census bureau as urban. But even then, that still amounts to something like 10,000 sq. km which is still bigger than the 7,000 sq. km of the urban area of Tokyo. Tokyo is confined by mountains from expanding much more than its present extent.


----------



## treboy (Apr 14, 2006)

tokyo might have a largest urban sprawl.
so what. not so attractive sophisticated place at least to me.
I would gravitate to other large cities such as NYC, Paris, London,HongKong, Los Angeles and so on.


----------



## Kiss the Rain (Apr 2, 2006)

treboy said:


> tokyo might have a largest urban sprawl.
> so what. not so attractive sophisticated place at least to me.
> I would gravitate to other large cities such as NYC, Paris, London,HongKong, Lon Angeles and so on.


Oh you have no idea how sophisticated tokyo can be, naive little boy.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

treboy said:


> tokyo might have a largest urban sprawl.
> so what. not so attractive sophisticated place at least to me.
> I would gravitate to other large cities such as NYC, Paris, London,HongKong, Lon Angeles and so on.


Tokyo is the largest though NY and LA have large sprawls as well. But NY can be debatable with Tokyo's. Philadelphia to NY to Boston forms one large area


----------



## tigerboy (Jun 7, 2006)

WANCH said:


> Tokyo is the largest though NY and LA have large sprawls as well. But NY can be debatable with Tokyo's. Philadelphia to NY to Boston forms one large area


What about the Golden Triangle cornered on Paris London and the Ruhr? There is a mega megalopolis right at the heart of Europe.


----------



## Nick (Sep 13, 2002)

NN said:


> What cities have the largest urban expanse? For example the urban area surrounding London stretches from Reading in the west to Southend in the east - a distance of over 80 miles of continuous urban area or suburbs. how does this compare with your city?


No it doesnt.When you take the train to Reading you get to see alot of countryside

The laregest Continuous urban expance Ive even seen is from the Shinkansen(the bullet train) from Tokyo to Osaka.Nothing but appartments and small terrace housing for 600 km


----------



## Nick (Sep 13, 2002)

treboy said:


> tokyo might have a largest urban sprawl.
> so what. not so attractive sophisticated place at least to me.
> I would gravitate to other large cities such as NYC, Paris, London,HongKong, Lon Angeles and so on.


You have never been to Tokyo(The world's largest city) and it shows


----------



## Nick (Sep 13, 2002)

PhillyPhilly90 said:


> Ok, if it were based on NASA maps...then Los Angeles would look larger than Tokyo. Much of L.A.'s sprawl is exposed...unlike New York. To me, New York is the largest build-up area in the world...u can't define urban. Tokyo is definitely the biggest dense urban area in the world...but New York is the biggest build-up area.
> 
> Those NASA images aren't fooling me...much of New York's sprawl is covered by trees and it's also very hilly, but indeed, it expands out more than any other urban place.


New York is not the largest built up area in the world.There are huge areas of nothing just out of Manhattan.Especially when you cross the hudson to New Jersey

Tokyo just goes on an on.


----------



## Nick (Sep 13, 2002)

staff said:


> SHiRO has made maps of various urban areas in the world which are to scale.
> New York and Los Angeles has a larger agglomeration than Tokyo.


No they dont.If you follow the right roads Tokyo actually stretches from Mito in Ibaraki ken(150km to the north) and Bansho Ako near Hemeji(770 km to the south)

Thats about 1000km of continuous urban area


----------



## Nick (Sep 13, 2002)

I*LOVE*NY said:


>


Ive travelled up and down the stretch from Philly to Boston.There are huge areas of nothing.But from Hartford to the final suburbs on the frindge of Newmark its pretty dense by western standards


----------



## Nick (Sep 13, 2002)

Kiss the Rain said:


> Got to be tokyo, at least it fits the the term "urban" unlike many people counts the bloody suburbs in american cities and pretend it to be urban and therefore making them with biggest urban expanse. Face it, the actual urban expanse of most of them is just the downtown and maybe a bit of surrounding. It takes like 10 minutes to walk through LA downtown for heaven sake.


You are dead right.After experiencing a Japanese city suburbs dont really count.


----------



## NN (Jun 1, 2006)

Nick said:


> No it doesnt.When you take the train to Reading you get to see alot of countryside
> 
> The laregest Continuous urban expance Ive even seen is from the Shinkansen(the bullet train) from Tokyo to Osaka.Nothing but appartments and small terrace housing for 600 km



If you take the train you do see countryside but if you take the right roads,i.e from Reading through Wokingham, Bracknell, Ascot, Sunninghill, Virginia Water, Egham and Staines you are then in London 'proper' without leaving urban or suburban development. On the other side of London, if you take the right roads, you can continue on to Southend without leaving developed land.


----------



## Spooky873 (Mar 2, 2005)

my guess would either be Tokyo or New York.


----------



## Spooky873 (Mar 2, 2005)

some random bullshit.

ive always wondered why the Bronx hasnt annexed Yonkers. They share many borders and characteristics with eachother, and its only 2 miles north of Manhattan. Whenever im in Yonkers I consider myself being in the city technically. I find it silly that its seperate from it.










Riverdale Ave looking north, from the Bronx.

Adding Yonkers would add 197,126 to NYC's 8,143,197, and also 18 sq miles to the 309 that is NYC. The increase in population would grant NYC more federal money, gaining 200,000 ppl, with such little space.

NYC's city proper population would be 8,340,323.


----------



## tigerboy (Jun 7, 2006)

Nick said:


> You are dead right.After experiencing a Japanese city suburbs dont really count.


Kiss the rain is correct. The US census areas are ridiculously large and if other cities were similarly measured it would put the US figures in context. I mean London could claim the West midlands of England at that rate.

They give LA MSA some 85,000 sq. kms. which is most of SOCAL. Nonsense and the Pop figure of 16,000,000 is a joke.

NY is given about 30,000 sq kms and again at least half of this is no way urban.

Lets make objective comparisons in similar areas

Region parisienne: c.12.000 sq kms. Pop c,11,500,000
London/Home Counties: c.14,800 sq. kms. Pop c. 13,500,000
NYC plus 15 contigious counties: c.12,500 sq kms. Pop c. 18,300,000
LA county: c. 12,000 sq kms. Pop c. 10,000,000
Tokyo 4 prefectures: c. 13,500 sq. kms. Pop c. 33,000,000

End of story. Whatever about endless American low density ribbon sprawl in similar sized areas around the core the fact is that tokyo has more people than NYC and LA's real metropolitan areas combined and reason dictates that it has the urban density to meet this.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

How about a new contender though unofficial. How about *The Pearl River Delta Region* which includes, HK, Macau, Shenzhen, Guangzhou and Dongguan


----------



## Spooky873 (Mar 2, 2005)

this is an urban expanse is it not?










The BosWash or Bosnywash or Boshington megalopolis is the name for a group of metropolitan areas in the northeastern United States, extending from Boston, Massachusetts to Washington, D.C., including New York City, Baltimore, and Philadelphia. The geographic trend was first identified in the 1961 book Megalopolis: The Urbanized Northeastern Seaboard of the United States by French geographer Jean Gottmann. The cities are also linked economically, and by transportation and communications.

According to Gottman, BosWash "provides the whole of America with so many essential services, of the sort a community used to obtain in its 'downtown' section, that it may well deserve the nickname of Main Street of the nation." He also envisioned the development of two similar megalopolises in the US: ChiPitts from Chicago to Pittsburgh and SanSan from San Francisco to San Diego.

BosWash theoretically extends from extreme southern Maine and New Hampshire all the way south to Virginia, where recently, with the explosion of population in the Hampton Roads area, the megalopolis now includes the three largest cities in Virginia: Virginia Beach, Norfolk, and Chesapeake. The megalopolis contains a reported population of 44 million, or 16% of the population of the United States (0.7% of the world population), three world cities, and four of the world's fifty largest metropolitan areas — Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore-Washington — as well as the New York Stock Exchange and NASDAQ, the White House and US Capitol, the UN Headquarters, the headquarters of ABC, NBC, CBS, and the New York Times Company as well as the Washington Post, and six of the eight Ivy League schools. The high-speed Amtrak train, the Acela Express, runs on the Northeast Corridor, an electrified rail line extending the length of the BosWash area. Interstate 95, arguably one of the most vital highways in the country, is also a major transportation route for the BosWash area.

The major cities in the BosWash megalopolis include the following (North-to-South):

* Manchester, New Hampshire
* Boston, Massachusetts
* Providence, Rhode Island
* Warwick, Rhode Island
* Worcester, Massachusetts
* Springfield, Massachusetts
* New Bedford, Massachusetts
* Fall River, Massachusetts
* Hartford, Connecticut
* New Haven, Connecticut
* Bridgeport, Connecticut
* Stamford, Connecticut
* Yonkers, New York
* New York, New York (Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, The Bronx)
* Long Island, New York
* Jersey City, New Jersey
* Newark, New Jersey
* Paterson, New Jersey
* New Brunswick, New Jersey
* Allentown, Pennsylvania
* Princeton, New Jersey
* Reading, Pennsylvania
* Trenton, New Jersey
* Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
* Atlantic City, New Jersey
* Wilmington, Delaware
* Baltimore, Maryland
* Columbia, Maryland
* Annapolis, Maryland
* Washington, District of Columbia
* Arlington, Virginia
* Alexandria, Virginia
* Richmond, Virginia
* Norfolk, Virginia
* Virginia Beach, Virginia
* Chesapeake, Virginia


----------



## Spooky873 (Mar 2, 2005)

if because theyre all in seperate states does it not count? 

what if that were a part of one state? would it count then?

my opinion - what difference does it make what state theyre in, on paper this shit doesnt matter. 

take a ride on I-95 all the way through.


----------



## EtherealMist (Jul 26, 2005)

Spooky873 said:


> some random bullshit.
> 
> ive always wondered why the Bronx hasnt annexed Yonkers. They share many borders and characteristics with eachother, and its only 2 miles north of Manhattan. Whenever im in Yonkers I consider myself being in the city technically. I find it silly that its seperate from it.
> 
> ...



I agree Yonkers totally feels like the Bronx well passed McLean ave


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan (Oct 20, 2004)

tigerboy said:


> Kiss the rain is correct. The US census areas are ridiculously large and if other cities were similarly measured it would put the US figures in context. I mean London could claim the West midlands of England at that rate.
> 
> They give LA MSA some 85,000 sq. kms. which is most of SOCAL. Nonsense and the Pop figure of 16,000,000 is a joke.
> 
> ...



the 85,000 for the LA area includes San bernardino and Riverside which includes in it Endless desert from the Mountains to Nevada, 250 miles away with about 75 people living in that area. it also includes numerous mountain ranges that are not inhabitable. The newest LA metro figure is about 17,850,000, and most of that is concentrated in the lower half of LA County, roughly 10 million of it.


----------



## Spooky873 (Mar 2, 2005)

yea, its still fuckin NYC to me. take out all the signs you wouldnt know the difference if you were in the bronx or yonkers. its a minute 18 sq miles with 200,000 ppl.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

LosAngelesSportsFan said:


> the 85,000 for the LA area includes San bernardino and Riverside which includes in it Endless desert from the Mountains to Nevada, 250 miles away with about 75 people living in that area. it also includes numerous mountain ranges that are not inhabitable. The newest LA metro figure is about 17,850,000, and most of that is concentrated in the lower half of LA County, roughly 10 million of it.


LA's metro area eastward is up in The Inland Empire with San Bernardino and possibly Palmdale as the furthest connected urban sprawl. But between San Bernardino and Victorville, it's empty because of the mountains.

LA and NY's metro area is debatable but official records stated that the NY metro area is the largest sprawl


----------



## Riton (Feb 8, 2006)

I don't think anyone is claiming that MSAs are completely urban. Urban areas in the U.S. are based on population density (contiguous census block groups with a density of at least ~400 per sq. km). Applying that criterion to the Tokyo urban area results in a figure of about 7000-9000 sq. km depending on what building blocks are used. Only about 2/3 of Tokyo, 2/3 of Kanagawa, 1/2 of Saitama, about 1/6 of Ibaraki, and 1/2 of Chiba are included in the urban area. The New York urban area has a surface area of 8,700 sq. km but it is continuous with the urban areas of Bridgeport (Connecticut), New Haven (Connecticut), and Danbury (Connecticut) resulting in a continuous urban area of about 10,000 sq. km. While the overall density of Tokyo is larger, the extent of New York is still bigger. Tokyo is pretty close to its geographic limits because of natural obstacles.


----------



## Skybean (Jun 16, 2004)

WANCH said:


> How about a new contender though unofficial. How about *The Pearl River Delta Region* which includes, HK, Macau, Shenzhen, Guangzhou and Dongguan



This would be right up there with Tokyo.


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor (Aug 1, 2005)

*@ Riton*

^^ So, the rankings would be...???

1. New York Tri-State Area 

2. Greater Tokyo (Tokyo-Yokohama-Kawasaki-Chiba-Kanagawa-Ibaraki-Saitama)

3. Greater Los Angeles (Los Angeles-Riverside-Ventura-San Bernardino)

4 ???

Pls. help me edit. Thanks.


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor (Aug 1, 2005)

*@ WANCH*

The Pearl River Delta is often considered more as a megalopolis (urban belt)rather than a single metropolis (urban agglomeration). But, yes, this area is similar, if not larger in size (in terms of built-up sprawl), as Greater Tokyo. However, I would recommend that, in hierarchical discussions, the Pearl River Delta Megalopolis would fit a comparison better with the Tokyo-Nagoya-Osaka Megalopolis. In this measure, the Pearl River Delta Megalopolis pales in comparison.


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor (Aug 1, 2005)

*...to give more spice to this thread...*

I am going to compare megalopolises by size. The largest megalopolises (considered as an urban belt or a congregation of multiple urban agglomerations) in terms of built-up areas are:

1. The "Blue Banana" Megalopolis

2. BoshWash Northeastern Corridor Megalopolis

3. Utsonomiya-Tokyo-Shizuoka-Nagoya-Osaka-Okayama-Hiroshima-Kitakyushu-Fukuoka (Tokaido-Sanyo Rail Corridor) Megalopolis

4. ???

Add megalopolises (and rank them) as you please.  Thanks in advance.


----------



## Riton (Feb 8, 2006)

The Cebuano Exultor said:


> ^^ So, the rankings would be...???
> 1. New York Tri-State Area
> 2. Greater Tokyo (Tokyo-Yokohama-Kawasaki-Chiba-Kanagawa-Ibaraki-Saitama)
> 3. Greater Los Angeles (Los Angeles-Riverside-Ventura-San Bernardino)
> ...


Los Angeles is indeed third (~6000 sq km). The fourth is a little fuzzy -- probably either Chicago, Atlanta, Boston, or Philadelphia (all at ~5000 sq km). Although the ranking depends on what exactly you mean by urban. This ranking is based on continuous areas with population density of >400 per sq. km.


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor (Aug 1, 2005)

*@ Riton*

What are your thoughts, comments and suggestions for the 97th post?


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

What is the Blue Banana??

NYC's sprawl is reportedly the largest sprawl in the world, from what I hear...


----------

