# Future megacities in the developed world



## polako

Is Chicago the only urban area in the developed world that is growing fast enough to become a megacity by 2050?


----------



## Xusein

I think we may see some megacities in the Sunbelt...possibly Dallas, Atlanta, Houston, Miami...one of them will surpass 10 million by 2050 if current growth continues. The only reason why Chicago could look like it's the only one is because it's already close to that level...it's growth rate is nothing special.


----------



## monkeyronin

Hong Kong, The Bay Area, and Toronto will all certainly be megacities by then as well. Maybe even some others like Madrid, Singapore, and Sydney. 

But these are in presently developed countries only. We have to take into account the many developing countries which will become developed by 2050 and will no doubt have new megacities as well.


----------



## ale26

Toronto will definately be a megacity by 2050. Its metro is already 6 + million and is increasing very rapidly


----------



## Xusein

By 2050, Hartford will be swallowed by New York City. :lol:

Other than extreme changes in the CSA, I don't think there is much potential for more megacities in the US Northeast. The population is too stagnant. Boston and Philadelphia both have over 7 million apparently, but they have too much areas in their CSAs, plus their growth is too slow anyway. 

Meh, population growth is overrated anyway.


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor

*Re: Mega-Cities in the Developed World of 2050*

By 2050, all countries in the world will be developed except for much of Sub-Saharan Africa. Therefore, the only non-developed mega-cities by then will be:

List [in no particular ranked-order]:
1. Lagos
2. Kinshasa
3. Addis Ababa
4. Khartoum

By that time, the world will be more-defined as: clumps of mega-cities and hyper-cities rather than politically-sub-divided landmasses and islands (into countries and non-sovereign states).


----------



## drunkenmunkey888

How would you define a megacity? I would say appropriate standards for the current year would be 10 million in the city proper/downtown area and at least 20 million in the metropolitan area. The only two cities in the developed world that truly fit the definition of a megacity are New York City and Tokyo. 

Most of the cities mentioned (Toronto, Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, and Miami) have what I like to describe as New World city structure, which is low-density, car-reliant, single family detached house suburban sprawl type city. It is very prevalent in the "New World" ie: Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and United States. On the other hand, Old World city structure is high-density, subway/suburban rail reliant, mid or highrise apartment suburban sprawl type city. These are very prevalent in the "Old World" ie: Europe and Asia. Of course there are exceptions like the Northeast United States, which certainly has a number of Old World cities and Saudi Arabia, which is clearly New Word city type.

With that being said, I feel like it is very hard for a "New World" type city to achieve megacity status because it would be too energy inefficient and infrastructure will not be able to handle a megacity. No matter how many freeways a city builds, it won't be able to handle 20 million people all using their cars to get around. I could see a scenario where a city for example Houston, starts to "crunch up against itself" when it can sprawl no more and yet the population keeps growing. So huge tracts of inner suburbs immediately outside the downtown area gets rezoned as high-rise sections. More buildings begin to get built where parking lots used to be. And a massive subway/suburban rail system gets built. In effect, Houston would have transformed itself from a New World city to an Old World city.


----------



## ale26

10ROT said:


> By 2050, Hartford will be swallowed by New York City. :lol:
> 
> Other than extreme changes in the CSA, I don't think there is much potential for more megacities in the US Northeast. The population is too stagnant. Boston and Philadelphia both have over 7 million apparently, but they have too much areas in their CSAs, plus their growth is too slow anyway.
> 
> Meh, population growth is overrated anyway.


Boston and Philidelphia don't have 7 millio^^...Bostons metro is about 4.8 million and phili's is 5.9 million

That would make them bigger than Toronto and their not, Toronto's metro is around 6.2 million and increasing fast, it's currently the 6th largest city in North Amercia.


----------



## Xusein

I was talking about CSAs, not MSAs. There is a difference.

They are ridiculously huge, but they are the main metro area stats used in the US. Most of the reason why Boston is even to 7 million is because the metro area swallowed the entire state of Rhode Island and parts of New Hampshire...hell, even parts of Connecticut too! :shocked:

I exaggerated a bit on Philly, it has 6.3 million. That seems more accurate, although the Philly metro area goes all the way to Atlantic City, I believe. Bottom line: American metro definitions are ridiculous, but they are what we use.

You could check the stats here:
http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/CBSA-est2007-annual.html



> Boston: *7,476,689*
> Philadelphia: *6,385,461*


Toronto is growing faster than both, and if Statscan used the metro figures like the US census does, it would be much larger than both, probably more than 8 million. Neither Boston nor Philadelphia have the potential to grow to 10 million by 2050, they are growing too slow. 

But, we don't care about this thing called population growth here in the US Northeast. :lol:

I do think that NYC will hit 25 million by then though.


----------



## Xusein

drunkenmunkey888 said:


> With that being said, I feel like it is very hard for a "New World" type city to achieve megacity status because it would be too energy inefficient and infrastructure will not be able to handle a megacity. No matter how many freeways a city builds, it won't be able to handle 20 million people all using their cars to get around. I could see a scenario where a city for example Houston, starts to "crunch up against itself" when it can sprawl no more and yet the population keeps growing. So huge tracts of inner suburbs immediately outside the downtown area gets rezoned as high-rise sections. More buildings begin to get built where parking lots used to be. And a massive subway/suburban rail system gets built. In effect, Houston would have transformed itself from a New World city to an Old World city.


For that to take place, there would have to be MASSIVE zoning and development changes. I'm talking a 180 degree change. Unless gasoline hits $5 or above here in the US (or the subprime crisis continues to stop sprawl like it is now), there will be no change...especially in Houston of all places.

I do agree with you though...there are only a handful of cities in this world that can actually sustainably be a megacity. New York is one. I don't want to think about a Houston with 10 million people though. :lol:


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor

*@ drunkenmunkey888*



> With that being said, *I feel like it is very hard for a "New World" type city to achieve megacity status because it would be too energy inefficient and infrastructure will not be able to handle a megacity*. No matter how many freeways a city builds, it won't be able to handle 20 million people all using their cars to get around. I could see a scenario where a city for example Houston, starts to "crunch up against itself" when it can sprawl no more and yet the population keeps growing. So huge tracts of inner suburbs immediately outside the downtown area gets rezoned as high-rise sections. More buildings begin to get built where parking lots used to be. And a massive subway/suburban rail system gets built. In effect, Houston would have transformed itself from a New World city to an Old World city.


^^ Los Angeles may reach mega-city (defined as one city--as opposed to urban agglomerations or metropolitan areas) status by 2050. And, according to your definitions (based on your posts/comments), it is a "New World" city. IMO, it is the only "New World" city that might.

BTW, the minimum population requirement to be met before a city is to be considered a "megacity" is 10 million. The 20 million-figure is for cities that are considered as "hypercities".


----------



## Xusein

^^ Isn't LA already a megacity?


----------



## FM 2258

We're going to need alot of oil to keep these megacites running without causing a worldwide famine and if not oil the issue of renewable energy seriously needs to be addressed. Although cities will get big in the future they will be very fragile if we don't take care of how we power them.


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor

*@ 10ROT*



> ^^ Isn't LA already a megacity?


The Greater Los Angeles Area is. But the City of Los Angeles, perse, hasn't reached mega-city status yet.


----------



## Puertalian

take a look at the growth patterns of vancover, bc. lots of highdensity downtown, but also in the surrounding suberbs like burnaby and north van. i dont know that its growth rate is high enough to make it a mega city by 2050, but certainly lots of potential in that brilliant urban planing.


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor

*@ Puertalian*

Yeah. Vancouver, along with Toronto, are the dynamic duos of Canadian urbanism.


----------



## Epi

Depends what you mean by 'mega cities' and what you already count within that definition. Also depends on what you mean by developed. Assuming you mean countries with >$15,000 USD/capita GDP and taking the '10 million people in the greater area' definition we get:
Tokyo
New York
Los Angeles
London
Paris
Seoul


Of cities which are already considered in the 'developed world' and not yet >10 million but will surely reach that in the next 42 years:
Hong Kong (Will likely coalesce with Shenzhen into one hyper city)
Chicago (8-9 million now, will reach 10 million in 40 years no doubt)
Toronto (5.6 million in 2006, growing at 100,000/year for the last 25 years, will reach 10 million by 2050 if this continues)

Of course any speculation that far into the future is probably pointless. For instance if California falls into the sea, maybe you'll see a regression of cities there. If there's major upheaval in Eastern Europe, maybe the western Europe cities will suddenly expand exponentially. Who knows.


----------



## bob rulz

10ROT said:


> For that to take place, there would have to be MASSIVE zoning and development changes. I'm talking a 180 degree change. *Unless gasoline hits $5 or above here in the US (or the subprime crisis continues to stop sprawl like it is now), there will be no change...especially in Houston of all places.*
> 
> I do agree with you though...there are only a handful of cities in this world that can actually sustainably be a megacity. New York is one. I don't want to think about a Houston with 10 million people though. :lol:


Dude, gasoline will probably reach $5/gallon _summer 2009_, at least in some areas.


----------



## Xusein

It will? Oh, shit. We're boned. :doh:

(actually, I know it will, my point is that there needs to be a major sea change for all these re-zoning to take place...aka, higher gas prices.)


----------



## Pavlov's Dog

Washington-Baltimore is already at 8.2 million and should easily reach 10 million by 2050.

Madrid is a city that could manage that too if immigration to Spain continues it's recent trend. It's adding 1,000,000 a decade at it's current growth rate and has the 6 million mark.

Toronto should be able to reach the 10 million threshold especially as it merges with Hamilton. 

Milan is another city that could reach that mark. It's currently at 7.4 million and with immigration increasing could also do that.

Chicago will obviously reach 10 million well before 2050.


----------



## TheFly

*Loving the stats!*

Can't beat the stat monsters.

If you are counting people who live within 120km of a city as being within the metro then here in the Uk...

London c30million
Birmingham c20million
Manchester c20million

As an example within 120km of Manchester you have:-
Greater Manchester
Cheshire
Merseyside (including Liverpool)
Lancashire
West Yorkshire (including Leeds)
South Yorkshire (including Sheffield)
Derbyshire
Stafffordshire

Patently absurd to include all these in the Manchester metro.


----------



## GENIUS LOCI

TheFly said:


> London c30million
> Birmingham c20million
> Manchester c20million


Obviously there is a 'sovrapposition' because the total is 10 mio more than UK inhabitants


----------



## Chrissib

GENIUS LOCI said:


> Chrissib map has an accuracy... there is even the pop increasing
> 
> Anyway, for Italy, I thought that Rome increased as much as Milan in percentage, while Torino a bit less
> While Napoli is not substantially increasing that much as the map shows
> 
> For Europe in its complex: interesting to see increasing rates high in countries which today have a strong immigration (as Spain) and low where immigration is low (as Germany, where there is an immigration 'sboom' despite decades of strong immigration)


For Rome I used the province of Roma. But it's also interesting that the growth of the Paris-metro is based entirely on natural increase.


----------



## GENIUS LOCI

Chrissib said:


> For Rome I used the province of Roma.


Updated to?

Anyway I provide you the census official data web-site with updated tables till December 31st 2006 and updates till August 2007 
http://demo.istat.it/


> But it's also interesting that the growth of the Paris-metro is based entirely on natural increase.


Really?
I knew France had a very good birth rate for Europe, but, anyway, I thought Paris actracted immigrants


----------



## GENIUS LOCI

Apparently anything to do with the topic, but anyway something which can give you a more global vision on Italian urban settlements

A satellite night vision of the country










A map of urban settlements (elaboration of 1991 by Torino Politecnico University)










You can see there are at least other two big 'metro areas' after Milano, Roma, Napoli, Torino
The one between Firenze and the sea and between Venezia and Vicenza; I extimate they both have about 2 mio inhabitants


----------



## the spliff fairy

At the end of the day if youre going to give a count of people 'in' NYC as 22million+, taking in open spaces the size of mainland Scotland, calculated on densities over 1000ppsm and their commuting 
habits....


you get this for 'London'.


Thus London=most of central England, *48 million people in an area smaller than Maine, (and
far denser than 1000ppsm):*


Population concentrations:


----------



## the spliff fairy

If you want to look at the density of the 'countryside' between the major centres, check it out:

The so called, protected 'Green' Belt:




















this intense urban 'peppering' extends up to the metropolises up north too. 

These are all different but closely linked cities from the same viewpoint:



kids said:


> *The urban north of England*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (left to right) BRADFORD, LEEDS, SHEFFIELD
> |
> MANCHESTER​
> and looking the other way:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (top to bottom) LIVERPOOL
> |
> MANCHESTER​
> Total population (manchester-liverpool, south yorkshire, north yorkshire) 7,042,343


----------



## Justme

Cunning Linguist said:


> And what's my definition?
> 
> EDIT: Just checked your wikipedia page and obviously you fail to understand that London is composed of multiple boroughs, whereas all the other cities are wholly contained by their respective administrative boundaries.
> 
> What you might be getting confused with is the difference between a 'city' and what American's might term 'metro'. In this regard, you might argue that _Greater_ Manchester has a population higher than 452k, that is, if you include places such as Stockport, Cheshire etc. as being the city of Manchester. Of course, this leads us into a whole different debate about the definition of a city - where it finishes and ends.
> 
> *For the purposes of this thread, it's probably best to just concentrate on the population contained with the official administrative boundaries.*


Please explain how you think it is logical to compare one cities "city proper" or "council area" with another cities metropolitan area? It's a bit like measuring the height of two men, one in bare feet and the other on stilts and consider this acceptable and accurate.


----------



## Anderson Geimz

polako said:


> No, I don't know more than the US Census. I use their website on a regular basis and I came to the conclusion that it would be easier to just call today's metropolitan areas the built-up areas, because when I compared their definition with the built up area population of NYC I came up with the same figure.


But a metro area is not just build up area, that's the whole point!...To include areas with an economic and social dependence.

Anyway, the US Census recognizes MSA's which are metropolitan areas and CSA's which are "combined" metropolitan areas. The latter is always used in international comparisons for some reason. Fine by me, but we should compare like for like in that case...so if New York shows up in lists as 22 million, don't underestimate cities like Mexico City, Seoul, Sao Paulo, Shanghai, Jakarta which are all larger in a like for like comparison.

But to keep it short, you deciding for yourself that the urban area definition for New York is better suited, does not mean that this is universally accepted and I would certainly disagree that urban area is a suitable measure for fair comparisons (hint: it's because of green belts and different standards for what constitutes "continues developed area")


----------



## Anderson Geimz

the spliff fairy said:


> At the end of the day if youre going to give a count of people 'in' NYC as 22million+, taking in open spaces the size of mainland Scotland, calculated on densities over 1000ppsm and their commuting
> habits....
> 
> 
> you get this for 'London'.
> 
> 
> Thus London=most of central England, *48 million people in an area smaller than Maine, (and
> far denser than 1000ppsm):*


hno:

How many times do people on this website have to explain to you how US CSA's work?
What you are suggesting is not true at all!
CSA's are not calculated using density figures!
A CSA is calculated adding counties with a certain % of commuters! Some of these counties are large in area, but most of that area is empty with the population centers closer to the central city of the CSA they are added to.

*So AGAIN...if you measure New York as 22 million on 29,000 sq km and you apply the same method to London, you get 18 million in an area of approx. 27,000 sq km*.

So none of this 48 million on the size of Scotland nonsense...


----------



## Anderson Geimz

This is the New York CSA btw


----------



## Chrissib

That's 300km from Ulster County to Ocean County. Very impressive!!


----------



## Chrissib

polako said:


> This is an excellent map of world's metropolitan areas. If you want to make it more accurate you should zoom in on some regions like the US Northeast and Europe, because you left lots of 1 million+ metros out. Anyway good job.


Yes, it was my intention to leave the 1-2 million-metro-areas out because then the map would become too crowded.


----------



## Xusein

Guess where I am. It's only a matter of time until Hartford becomes a NY exurb. 










BTW, you guys are getting CSAs and MSAs mixed up. New York's MSA is just the orange parts, and it still has well above 10-13 million in that area anyway.


----------



## Xusein

the spliff fairy said:


> Thus London=most of central England, *48 million people in an area smaller than Maine, (and
> far denser than 1000ppsm)*


If we are looking it at that way...the Northeast Corridor of the US has over 44 million people, and I think it's in an area smaller than Maine too. Add some outlying areas into the mix and extend from Virginia to Southern Maine and it goes up to 55 million people.

There is still some farmland in between, but compared to the distances between cities in other parts of the US, we are pretty much clumped together. 



















Imagine the night shot in 25 years. There will be one big blob of light from Northern Virginia to Central Connecticut, which is a bit less than 570km from each other. Boston will probably stay isolated though. I bet that by 2050, it will be one giant megacity.


----------



## Anderson Geimz

10ROT said:


> BTW, you guys are getting CSAs and MSAs mixed up. New York's MSA is just the orange parts, and it still has well above 10-13 million in that area anyway.


Actually New York's MSA is the orange, blue, green and red parts and has nearly 19 million.


----------



## Xusein

The main part, the New York-White Plains-Wayne NY-NJ division, has a bit more than 11 million.

That is what I was talking about...it gets too muddled when you add other areas.


----------



## Anderson Geimz

Correct, but that's not the MSA...

Anyway, there's merit in using CSA figures in international comparisons. Just don't underestimate non US cities is what I'm saying.
Usually you see "lists" where New York is listed as 4th, 3rd or even 2nd biggest city in the world (sometimes even adding Philly to make it 30 million+ :crazy.

I'd say that Tokyo, Seoul, Sao Paulo, Mexico City, Jakarta and Shanghai are all definately bigger than New York. Mumbai and Delhi, if not already there are very close.
At best New York is the world's 7th biggest city, but more likely 9th and soon to fall out of the top 10.


----------



## brisavoine

polako said:


> The problem I have with your answer is that all the sources say NYC's urban area surpassed London's urban area around 1925.
> 
> After further research I found this.
> NYC's urban area had a population of 7.798 million people in 1920(5.62 million in city and 2.178 in surrounding areas, mostly NJ). London's urban area was marginally ahead of NYC in 1920 at around 8 million. By 1930 NYC's urban area had a population of 10.098 million and became the first megacity. In 1939 when Greater London's population peaked at 8.6 million the urban area had 9.9 million after which it declined due to War. During the late 40's and 50's the city continued to decline, but the surrounding areas exploded. Technically London became a megacity during the late 50's. Today London's urban area has a population of around 12 million, NYC's around 18 million. Both urban areas declined during the 70's and were basically stable during the 80's or saw very little growth. Since the 90's both have been growing.





polako said:


> London's urban area is 12 million, metropolitan area is 15 million. NYC's urban area is 18.5 million, metropolitan area is 22 million.


Your figures are correct till WW2, but not for today. You seem to be confusing urban and metropolitan area in the case of London. The London urban area has between 8.5 and 9.5 million inhabitants depending on definitions (8.5 million is the definition of the UK Office for National Statistics). As for the London metropolitan area, it has 12.1 million inhabitants according to Eurostat. 15 million is just an exagerated number, one of these exagerated numbers that circulate on online forums (another one even more crazy is 18 million) and which refer to the the largest part (15 million) or the entire area (18 million) of South-East of England including Southampton, the Isle of Wight, Oxford, etc. If we took such a large area in Western Germany and Holland, around Cologne and Rotterdam, we'd find 30 million people living within that area.


Chrissib said:


> But it's also interesting that the growth of the Paris-metro is based entirely on natural increase.





GENIUS LOCI said:


> I knew France had a very good birth rate for Europe, but, anyway, I thought Paris actracted immigrants


And you are right Genius Loci, and Chrissib is wrong. There are three components to the population growth of a city/metropolitan area: 1- natural increase (births - deaths); 2- internal net migration (i.e. migration flows between the city/metro area and other regions of the same country); 3- international net migration (i.e. migration flows between the city/metro area and foreign countries).

In the case of the Paris metro area, the natural increase is very high. The internal net migration is negative (i.e. there are more people moving from Paris to the French provinces than from the French provinces to Paris), and it has been negative since the end of the 1960s. The international net migration is positive (i.e. there are more immigrants who arrive in Paris than immigrants who return to their home countries and Parisians who move abroad).

So Paris' growth is not based on natural increase only. Without international immigration, Paris' growth would be slower. Concerning internal migration, it's interesting to note that those moving from the French provinces to Paris are young people, whereas those moving from Paris to the French provinces are older people. This is why the natural increase in Paris is so high: young people move in, older people leave, therefore more births and less deaths.


----------



## Anderson Geimz

brisavoine said:


> As for the London metropolitan area, it has 12.1 million inhabitants according to Eurostat. 15 million is just an exagerated number, one of these exagerated numbers that circulate on online forums (another one even more crazy is 18 million) and which refer to the the largest part (15 million) or the entire area (18 million) of South-East of England including Southampton, the Isle of Wight, Oxford, etc. If we took such a large area in Western Germany and Holland, around Cologne and Rotterdam, we'd find 30 million people living within that area.


Another one of those who refuse/pretend not to understand metro areas because it doesn't suit their agenda at times (in this case London having a very generously defined official definition comparable to US metro's and Paris using the more narrowly defined INSEE definition).
London's officially defined metro area is about 27,000 sq km, with clear and calculated commuter patterns towards the central area. It does not include the Isle of Wight (more ignorance on your part), it does however include a corridor to Oxford (which isn't that far from London in the first place) because of commuting patterns allow for it.
The urbanised parts of Holland, Flanders and Western Germany you are refering to are about twice as large in area with commuting patterns all over the place, but most notably NOT between the various conurbations in the region. It is by any measure a densely populated area, one of the densest in the world even, but it is not a single metropolitan area!! (it's in fact similar to the Pearl River Delta).
London is and instead of people like brisavoine whining all the time, you should calculate a CSA for Paris so we can finally put this matter to rest.

:bash:

And for your information, Eurostat doesn't calculate metro areas...


----------



## Medusah

Hah, imagine the gigantic 100 million people city that will be NYC, Philly, Baltimore, East Coast of Connenicuit, New jersey, Boston. Pretty mmuch the whole Upper East Coast. Will be insane!!!


----------



## Chrissib

brisavoine said:


> The overall population of Germany is declining though, so it's not like German cities are going to grow terribly. At best they'll stagnate, otherwise they'll lose inhabitants as is already the case in Eastern Germany.


The rural areas will loose the population first, then the suburbs will start to fall. And before the cities are going to shrink, we'll have the right family-policy to lift our birth rate.


----------



## brisavoine

^^That's the rosy scenario. Now you care to tell people the more realistic scenario?


----------



## Metropolitan

brisavoine said:


> ^^That's the rosy scenario. Now you care to tell people the more realistic scenario?


It's not a good thing for anyone that the German population shrinks. It's not good for Germany, but it's not better for France, which is still a key commercial partner of Germany. We have all interests to have a demographically prosperous Germany as neighbour. Germany must get rid of its taboo and starts to do something, politically speaking, about it.


----------



## FFM2007

Has anyone a link to a map/statistic that shows the birth rates in france relatet to the departements?


----------



## brisavoine

Metropolitan said:


> It's not a good thing for anyone that the German population shrinks.


It's not a question of whether it's a good or bad thing, it's a question of describing reality, that's all. No need to introduce judgment values here.


FFM2007 said:


> Has anyone a link to a map/statistic that shows the birth rates in france relatet to the departements?


Yes, here.

*Fertility rates 2003:*
Color codes:
- red: total fertility rate (TFR) under 1.3
- pink: TFR between 1.31 and 1.40
- orange: TFR between 1.41 and 1.50
- yellow: TFR between 1.51 and 1.70
- light green: TFR between 1.71 and 1.90
- dark green: TFR between 1.91 and 2.10
- very dark green: TFR above 2.10. REPLACEMENT OF GENERATIONS ASSURED.


----------



## eklips

Metropolitan said:


> It's not a good thing for anyone that the German population shrinks. It's not good for Germany, but it's not better for France, which is still a key commercial partner of Germany. We have all interests to have a demographically prosperous Germany as neighbour. Germany must get rid of its taboo and starts to do something, politically speaking, about it.


The thing is that it has actually never been proved that natalist policies have an effect on birth rates.


----------



## GENIUS LOCI

brisavoine said:


> *Fertility rates 2003:*
> Color codes:
> - red: total fertility rate (TFR) under 1.3
> - pink: TFR between 1.31 and 1.40
> - orange: TFR between 1.41 and 1.50
> - yellow: TFR between 1.51 and 1.70
> - light green: TFR between 1.71 and 1.90
> - dark green: TFR between 1.91 and 2.10
> - very dark green: TFR above 2.10. REPLACEMENT OF GENERATIONS ASSURED.


The difference is incredible, but not a surprise; France has a very high fertility: even if we compare it with the most part of Western Europe countries the result would be the same

I'm wondering why just France; what kind of peculiar conditions do they have respect the rest of EU?
Maybe a policy wich give a big help to family; I know for istance more sons you have less taxes you pay, in some cases no taxes at all


----------



## Chrissib

brisavoine said:


> It's not a question of whether it's a good or bad thing, it's a question of describing reality, that's all. No need to introduce judgment values here.
> 
> Yes, here.
> 
> *Fertility rates 2003:*
> Color codes:
> - red: total fertility rate (TFR) under 1.3
> - pink: TFR between 1.31 and 1.40
> - orange: TFR between 1.41 and 1.50
> - yellow: TFR between 1.51 and 1.70
> - light green: TFR between 1.71 and 1.90
> - dark green: TFR between 1.91 and 2.10
> - very dark green: TFR above 2.10. REPLACEMENT OF GENERATIONS ASSURED.


Interesting that the south of France has a lower fertility than the north.

Here's a map of the USA:











Yellow, orange and red are above replacement fertility - The population will have nearly infinite natural growth.


----------



## brisavoine

^^Very interesting map of the US Chrissib, but it doesn't use the same colors as my map. I have recolored the US map using the same colors to allow easy comparisons. I have found exact fertility rate figures for each US state for the year 2004. For France I've made a newer map than the one above, using 2004 figures (which are higher than in the 2003 map posted in my previous message). For Germany the latest figures available are from 2003, but the situation has remained unchanged in 2004. Enjoy!

Color codes:
- red: total fertility rate (TFR) under 1.3
- pink: TFR between 1.31 and 1.40
- orange: TFR between 1.41 and 1.50
- yellow: TFR between 1.51 and 1.70
- light green: TFR between 1.71 and 1.90
- dark green: TFR between 1.91 and 2.10
- very dark green: TFR above 2.10. REPLACEMENT OF GENERATIONS ASSURED.









It's interesting to note that in 2004 the total fertility rate of the USA was 2.05, but the total fertility rate of non-Hispanic White women was only 1.85, which is almost the same as the total fertility rate of White women in France. The only reason why the total fertility rate of the US is higher than in France (and Europe) is because of Hispanics, in particular Mexicans. In details, for 2004:
- Hispanics: 2.82 (among whom Mexican immigrants: 3.02)
- Black Americans: 2.02
- Asians or Pacific Islanders: 1.90
- White Americans: 1.85
- Native American Indians: 1.73


----------



## Metropolitan

According to INSEE, 25% of babies born in France (from married parents) have at least one of their parent being foreign.
http://www.insee.fr/fr/ffc/pop_age3c.htm

Personally, I don't care if babies come from immigrants. The important is to have babies, and I would actually be quite proud if the average Frenchman would have a browner skin in 2100 than in 2000. I want little French babies of all colours!


----------



## brisavoine

^^Metropolitan, several studies by INSEE have already shown that French women have a fertility rate only 0.1 point lower than the French average (which includes immigrants women).

Now that the fertility rate of France is nearly 2.0, basically it means that French women have a fertility rate of 1.9 (i.e. almost the same as White American women) whereas immigrant women in France have a fertility rate of 2.8, giving an average of 2.0 (since there are more French women than immigrant women in France). If you don't believe me read _Le temps des immigrés_ by François Héran, pages 60 to 66.

In fact as can be seen on the map above the French deparments with the highest fertility rates are in Western France where there are few immigrants.


----------



## GENIUS LOCI

Metropolitan said:


> According to INSEE, 25% of babies born in France (from married parents) have at least one of their parent being foreign.


I think in whole Europe (and even in Usa) is the same thing... for istance in Italy percentage is similar: immigrants make more baibes than Italians with Italian anchestor; and in some way this fact helped to get our low birth rate a bit more high ( there is an increasing in its complex too, not only due to immigrants sons... anyway with a difference it decreases in Southern Italy -where normally birth rate is the highest- and increases in Center and North -apart some regions as Liguria)


Then, if immigrants babies have the same 'weight' in percentage, why in France birth rate is so high?
I'm still convinced French family policy helped


----------



## Metropolitan

brisavoine said:


> ^^Metropolitan, several studies by INSEE have already shown that French women have a fertility rate only 0.1 point lower than the French average (which includes immigrants women).
> 
> Now that the fertility rate of France is nearly 2.0, basically it means that French women have a fertility rate of 1.9 (i.e. almost the same as White American women) whereas immigrant women in France have a fertility rate of 2.8, giving an average of 2.0 (since there are more French women than immigrant women in France). If you don't believe me read _Le temps des immigrés_ by François Héran, pages 60 to 66.
> 
> In fact as can be seen on the map above the French deparments with the highest fertility rates are in Western France where there are few immigrants.


Yeah departments such as Val d'Oise or Seine-Saint-Denis...

Anyway, I've already told that I don't care about that. My point was simply that what you were saying for the US was also true in its way for France.


----------



## brisavoine

^^Too bad, but the department with the highest total fertility rate is Mayenne. Not really a place famed for its immigrant communities.


Metropolitan said:


> My point was simply that what you were saying for the US was also true in its way for France.


In France there is only a 0.1 point discrepancy between White women fertility rate and the overall fertility rate, whereas in the US this discrepancy is 0.2 point. That's probably because the proportion of immigrants in the US is higher than in France.


----------



## Good

I agree with Brisavoine. Western France (Britanny, Loire Valley, Charente, etc.) has a notoriously low proportion of immigrants. And you find the most fertile departments in this region, along with the northern Parisian suburbs, where yes, the high fertility rate is probably explained by their important number of immigrants.


----------



## Chrissib

In Germany, we have a different situation. The most fertile counties are in the north west, where we have not a high percentage of migrants, but a high percentage of voters of conservative parties. The fertility in the immigrant community number one in Germany, Berlin-Kreuzberg is at 1.24. On the map you can see also that the fertility is lower in ciies than in the suburbs and the countryside.Immigrants are mostly concentrated in cities in Germany. But onl time will tell whether the Germans or the Immigrants have the higher fertility-rate.


----------



## Chrissib

GENIUS LOCI said:


> I think in whole Europe (and even in Usa) is the same thing... for istance in Italy percentage is similar: immigrants make more baibes than Italians with Italian anchestor; and in some way this fact helped to get our low birth rate a bit more high ( there is an increasing in its complex too, not only due to immigrants sons... anyway with a difference it decreases in Southern Italy -where normally birth rate is the highest- and increases in Center and North -apart some regions as Liguria)
> 
> 
> Then, if immigrants babies have the same 'weight' in percentage, why in France birth rate is so high?
> I'm still convinced French family policy helped


In Italy, south tyrolia has the highest fertility rate. It stands at around 1.6-1.5.


----------



## Adams3

It's funny how the Mexicans in the US have a much higher fertility rate than even the highest fertility rate Mexican states (in the south of Mexico).


----------



## Chrissib

Adams3 said:


> It's funny how the Mexicans in the US have a much higher fertility rate than even the highest fertility rate Mexican states (in the south of Mexico).


The same with the Germans. In the USA, the german-americans have a higher fertility than in Cloppenburg, the county with the highest fertility in Germany.

Maybe the USA is a very family-friendly country.^^


----------



## GENIUS LOCI

^^
It's easy explainable: immigrants are quite all young, while in motherland there are plenty of middle aged and old people whose fertility is rather zero

Then in a pop of immigrants who is prevalently from 18 to 40 aged obviuosly the tax of fertility is higher than motherland pop where people are from 0 to 99 and over in a more homogeneous way


----------



## Adams3

GENIUS LOCI said:


> ^^
> It's easy explainable: immigrants are quite all young, while in motherland there are plenty of middle aged and old people whose fertility is rather zero
> 
> Then in a pop of immigrants who is prevalently from 18 to 40 aged obviuosly the tax of fertility is higher than motherland pop where people are from 0 to 99 and over in a more homogeneous way


No. Fertility rate only takes into account the fertile age people. You are confusing birth rate (births per 1000 people in the population) with fertility rate.


----------



## Astralis

Any Chinese city... probably more and more Indian ones as well, Dubai, Tokyo-Yokohama, Seoul, Sao Paulo, Belo Horizonte, Buenos Aires, London, Paris, Moscow, Istanbul, Ruhrstadt, New York, Los Angeles - Sand Diego - Tijuana... might be some new ones that I am not aware of.


----------



## Francisco91

bob rulz said:


> Dude, gasoline will probably reach $5/gallon _summer 2009_, at least in some areas.


How many liters is a gallon???


----------



## Francisco91

In Portugal a liter of gasoline costs 1.5€
Almost 9.5$ a gallon.


----------



## Chrissib

Francisco91 said:


> In Portugal a liter of gasoline costs 1.5€
> Almost 7€ a gallon.


We're at 8$ a gallon here in Germany.


----------



## the spliff fairy

In UK its $11.36 a gallon / $3 a litre, or $477 a barrel .


----------



## brisavoine

In France, as in the rest of Europe, only premium gas is available. Regular gas is not sold in Europe. In Central Paris premium gas costs between US$8.10 and US$9.43 a gallon depending on gas stations, with a median price of US$8.74 per gallon (those are the latest prices quoted by online websites).

In the outer suburbs of Paris premium gas costs between US$7.87 and US$9.08 per gallon depending on gas stations, with a median price of US$8.31 per gallon.

In my parent's hometown in southern France where gas is always cheaper than in Paris, premium gas cost $8.29 a gallon at their local supermarket two days ago.


----------



## karim aboussir

that is crazy !


----------



## Metropolitan

brisavoine said:


> In France, as in the rest of Europe, only premium gas is available. Regular gas is not sold in Europe. In Central Paris premium gas costs between US$8.10 and US$9.43 a gallon depending on gas stations, with a median price of US$8.74 per gallon (those are the latest prices quoted by online websites).
> 
> In the outer suburbs of Paris premium gas costs between US$7.87 and US$9.08 per gallon depending on gas stations, with a median price of US$8.31 per gallon.
> 
> In my parent's hometown in southern France where gas is always cheaper than in Paris, premium gas cost $8.29 a gallon at their local supermarket two days ago.


Yeah well... those expensive prices you mention are quite artificial since it's a lot more the result of a cheap dollar than of expensive oil. The increase isn't felt that strong by European consumers.

As a matter of fact, the price of premium unleaded gas is between €1.40/L and €1.50/L (between €5.30/gallon and €5.70/gallon). It's a record high, but the increase isn't that strong compared to crude oil. Indeed, from 2002 to 2008, gasoline prices in France have increased of 50% whereas crude oil prices have increased of 450%!!


----------



## DML2

Petrol in New Zealand doesn't look so expensive now


----------



## Astralis

Petrol in Croatia costs about 1.15 € per litre or 4.35 € per gallon.


----------



## PD

Petrol in Perth, Australia is $1.45 a litre.
$1.00AUS = $0.90US.

However gas (LPG) is very cheap since we produce it abundantly in West Australia.


----------



## friedemann

I've found a map where you can see the fertility rates of whole Europe in 2001.


----------



## isaidso

PD said:


> Petrol in Perth, Australia is $1.45 a litre.
> $1.00AUS = $0.90US.
> 
> However gas (LPG) is very cheap since we produce it abundantly in West Australia.


I thought Australian gas was sold in the global market at global market prices like it is in many western nations? National differences stem from transportation costs and different taxation rates.

The Canadian province of Alberta produces over 2 million barrels of oil equivalent/day, so they are awash in oil too. In Canada though, we have to compete with every other buyer on the planet for our own oil. This is done to ensure Alberta producers get the same price for their product as the market is willing to pay. 

I think it's ridiculous, but that is the way it is. Alberta gas stations actually ran out of gas a few times, because a production decrease meant there wasn't enough left to supply Alberta because it was all spoken for by Americans. Canada is not permitted to intentionally reduce supplies to the USA, unless we make an equally large decrease in supply to our own country. We signed a free trade document saying so. The Americans insisted on it or face the consequences. Since 80% of our exports go to the US, we didn't have much choice. hno:

Canada has the oil, but we actually pay about 10-20% more for it than Americans do. The biggest difference is that we tax it more heavily. It is about $1.10 to $1.50 depending on where in Canada you are. Oil producing regions of Canada are prospering, but we really signed away a huge economic advantage we had over the Americans. 

Next up: water. Hopefully, Canadian leaders will stand up for this country next time. Just say no. Cutting off our exports will hurt their own economy and they know it. Unfortunately, Canada blinked first last time around.


----------



## Xusein

Well, it's around $3.89 ($1.02/l) for regular near my place...premium is probably all above $4 now.

Diesel is around $4.69 nearby ($1.23/l). 

Before anyone goes saying "OMG! So cheap!", the prices here are rising faster than most other places thanks to the dollar. The price of gasoline has almost risen 40% since October.


----------



## Xusein

brisavoine said:


>


I find it very interesting that even the least fertile parts of the US, that are dealing with rapid aging and kids leaving (mostly in the Great Plaines and Northeast), and many that may even have more seniors than children in a couple of years, are still higher than the highest in Germany.

It's all relative though, only the dark green areas are above replacement. All ethnic groups where I live (including Hispanics) are below replacement. We don't have much Mexicans here.


----------



## max_cool

Most people in western nations pay more for gas than we do in the US. The problem for the US is systemic. The cities were built, more or less, on the presumption that everyone will drive to where they need to go. You could say that cities and urban planners in the US presumed cheap gas. So, while gas is 2 to 3 times more expensive elsewhere, Americans probably use 2 to 3 times more gas (about 460/per person per year in 2004) than those other places, especially those who bought giant SUV's and trucks to drive everywhere. Part of it is "keeping up with the Jones's" that is, my neighbor just bough a brand new big-ass SUV, now I need to so that I can look as wealthy and important as he does. It's really a terrible problem here. Anther pat of it is the belief that we (Americans) are owed some sort of right to be able to do whatever we want whenever we want. 

I love this country, but I'm not oblivious to problems facing it, and there are a lot more than problems than short sighted urban design and gas prices.


----------



## karim aboussir

here the vast majorty of immigrants 95 % of them are between age 15 and 45


----------



## Mariachi McMuffin

max_cool said:


> Anther pat of it is the belief that we (Americans) are owed some sort of right to be able to do whatever we want whenever we want.


We are owed that right. Americans should be allowed to live how they want to.


----------



## Justme

Khanrak said:


> Don't forget that we drive a whole lot farther than Europeans. Distances between our cities are MUCH larger than anywhere in Europe - and on top of that, we have no alternatives to cars because mostly right-wing lobbyists are viciously opposed to public transit funding . It has gotta change soon, but much of our supposed wastefulness is because we have no choice, and no chance against Republican lobbyists (until november).
> 
> And we do have the right to do whatever we want, so long as it is lawful.


American's may drive more than Europeans, but distances are not always that small in Europe. It depends where you want to go. Remember, Lisbon to Moscow is about the same distance as say Los Angeles to New York. We do have a lot more cities packed in close to each other in the densest parts of Europe though.


----------



## the spliff fairy

I think the unsaid thing is that energy consumption per capita has reached worst than worst case scenario in the West, long ago. If / when China or India alone reach the same levels the world will be well and truly f***ed. This is why China (at least one lobbying arm of the regime) is trying to cut down on its carbon emissions, which per capita would already be a paragon of virtue to a Western country. Problem is the other lobbying arm, in true globally capitalist style (read short term gain, get-rich-quick) is opening 2.5 coal powered power stations a week, while the ecologists instate some of the strictest environmental laws and opening up wind/ water farms and a windmill on every roof.

This environmental lobby, although the fastest growing and most profitable arm of govt, and pretty ruthless too (millions of workers laid off as industry is kicked out the megacities, huge cityscapes razed to keep park area per capita, per vicinity to its mandatory levels), but also has to contend with local corruption, claiming only 10 percent of its laws are enforced. It has now resorted to that rare thing in an authoritarian regime - grass roots, people powered political groups to help it, of which there are hundreds of thousands such eco-groups helping in shutting down factories and putting together cases of corruption despite the threat of imprisonment and even torture from local police. The country puts a loss of 5.8% of GDP every year due to environmental degradation. At the moment this has helped Beijing put aside $200 billion a year for China's ecology.

It does have a sterling argument though in its ammunition - China let alone the world, does not have an *economic* future if it follows North American levels of excess. By its accounts, on the current development level alone, the country would have run out of its sand, brick, mortar and wood supplies if all the new buildings since the 1990s were made out of traditional styles and materials.

The other unsaid thing is *to criticise a capitalistic, carbon burning China, without criticising ourselves, would be very much the case of the pot calling the kettle black*. On another level, blaming the worlds global workhouse/ factory would be like the drug dealer blaming the client for his life in crime (or vice versa).

The last thing implied, in my view wrongly, is that the West thinks it has the right to use up the worlds resources and noone else, (and it will at its rates). I don't think this is true, I just think people want to keep their lifestyles simple as. Its not due to superiority, just selfishness, considering they're depriving their own children of such a life, let alone a foreigner's.


What needs to be done is *constructive* criticism. Things definitely need to change in China just as much as in the West. Both sides are bleeding the world dry, its pointless to point fingers at each other without doing anything ourselves (China as much as the West). If China/ US caved in and started drastically cutting its carbon emmisions, what would be the point if the other side just kept helping themselves to what resources you had saved (for them), driving their cars and powering their tvs, and flying their holidays in thanks for the other's 'sacrifice'?


----------



## Pavlemadrid

*MADRID*
*TODAY*
-Madrid city: 3,190.000
-Madrid metropolitan area: 6,100.000
-Madrid metropolitan region: *6,800.000*
Madrid metropolitan area have 65.000 new inhabitants at year, Madrid metropolitan region probably 90.000 new inh/year. In 2020 years with this growt the metropolitan area: 6,900.000. & the metropolitan region: 8,000.000
But they are doing many new neighborhoods, just in the SE of ONLY MADRID CITY they are doing neighborhoods for more than 600.000 new inh. And totally in metropolitan region can be *new neighborhoods & sprawls for more than 1,000.000 new inh*. Then the population in *2020* can be more than *8,700.000 in metropolitan region*.
*The GDP per capita today are 52.000$* & growl a 4% at year, then in 2020 can be 80.000$. 
*Madrid is one of the 5 principal financial center in the world.*


----------



## brisavoine

^^Stop with the propaganda, thank you.

In the real world population growth in the Madrid metropolitan area has greatly diminished because there are less immigrants coming to Spain now compared to the beginning of the 2000s. In the year 2006 the population in the three provinces of Madrid, Toledo and Guadalajara combined increased only by 86,661 people, so not 180,000 new inhabitants per year as you claim. Besides, with the collapse of the Spanish housing market and the hard landing of the economy, most analysts expect that immigration flows to Spain will be largely reduced. As for natural population growth, Spaniards have an extremely low fertility rate, and their population is actually diminishing. So it is only in your dreams that the Madrid metropolitan area will have more than 10 million inhabitants in 2020.

At the moment the three provinces of Madrid, Toledo and Guadalajara combined, which cover a very big area of 35,559 km² (13729 sq. miles), have 6,923,967 inhabitants (as of Jan. 2007). At the most I can imagine 8 million people within these three provinces in 2020, if Spain still manages to attract lots of immigrants.


----------



## Pavlemadrid

brisavoine said:


> ^^Stop with the propaganda, thank you.
> 
> In the real world population growth in the Madrid metropolitan area has greatly diminished because there are less immigrants coming to Spain now compared to the beginning of the 2000s. In the year 2006 the population in the three provinces of Madrid, Toledo and Guadalajara combined increased only by 86,661 people, so not 180,000 new inhabitants per year as you claim. Besides, with the collapse of the Spanish housing market and the hard landing of the economy, most analysts expect that immigration flows to Spain will be largely reduced. As for natural population growth, Spaniards have an extremely low fertility rate, and their population is actually diminishing. So it is only in your dreams that the Madrid metropolitan area will have more than 10 million inhabitants in 2020.
> 
> At the moment the three provinces of Madrid, Toledo and Guadalajara combined, which cover a very big area of 35,559 km² (13729 sq. miles), have 6,923,967 inhabitants (as of Jan. 2007). At the most I can imagine 8 million people within these three provinces in 2020, if Spain still manages to attract lots of immigrants.


:crazy: Why you attack me?

Just I was confused, I went to say in 2 years... Then the data was bad.

The metropolitan region isn't Madrid, Toledo & Guadalajara, some zones of Segovia & Avila too, & not all the provinces of Guadalajara and Toledo are in the MR. The figures of new inmigrants/year in Madrid and Spain are hardly equals than years ago.

And why not do propaganda of MY city...? Because you say it... not? :crazy: If I don't attack other cities I don't do any bad thing.... But you attack cities, you could have said: "Hello Pavlemadrid, I think you've been wrong with the data", but you prefere attack...

I don't want speak with you, thank you! 
PD: People, sorry my bad english


----------



## Justme

^^ Just ignore him. brisavoine has a tendency to forget about manners when discussing. It's a pity really, as he does have a wealth of figures worth bringing into any population discussion. The problem is, his social skills have never been developed.


----------



## brisavoine

^^And Pavlemadrid has a tendency to claim exagerated things about Madrid. This is not the first time.


----------



## Pavlemadrid

brisavoine said:


> ^^And Pavlemadrid has a tendency to claim exagerated things about Madrid. This is not the first time.


It wasn't exagerated... I was confused with the data... Just it! :crazy: :lol:


----------



## Metropolitan

Well, Brisavoine always makes lots of efforts to prove France isn't actually like its cliché, but this obviously ends up when rudeness is getting involved. 

:cheers:


----------



## brisavoine

^^I have little patience with exaggerated claims and trumpeting, that's a fact. Especially when people are repeat offenders.


----------



## PD

Could heating be a big part of Canadas consumption?

I mean in Australia we dont need heating as much as Canada, but the Air Conditioner gets used a bit. Does heating perhaps use more energy than cooling?


----------



## Skyline_FFM

The only cities I can see as future megacities in the full developed World are Toronto, Sydney and Melbourne. The very most megacities are a result of bad development driving people from the countryside into the cities where they squattered lots and formed slums. There are only a few exceptions such as Tokyo, London or NYC. But in earlier times there haven't been real megacity growths in the developed regions. Toronto, Sydney and Melbourne are megacitylike, but no real megacities. No real developed country would find it something good to have a megacity. 
In the 1970s, Paris and London did many efforts to decentralize industry and thus population which acutally only stopped the growth, but couldn't reverse it.
I find megacities fantastic, but the only ones I would ever consider to live are London, NYC and maybe Paris. Others have too little quality of life and I prefer a well-developed medium-sized city rather than an urban tarantula that has nothing else to offer than it's sheer size. And many of the megacities are such cities...


----------



## ale26

^^Very nicely written


----------



## Anderson Geimz

Actually not at all...
Pretty ignorant even...

Moscow, LA, Istanbul, Buenos Aires, Mexico City, Osaka...not worth living in?

And Sydney and Melbourne aren't even 1/2 megacities (<5 million).

Too many damn cityhaters on this website...:no:


----------



## the spliff fairy

in the Cities exhibition last summer in Tate Modern it stated of the urban growth in the coming decades 90% would be in Asia and Africa.


----------



## karim aboussir

casablanca is a micro mega city pop is only 4 million


----------



## Justme

Skyline_FFM said:


> The only cities I can see as future megacities in the full developed World are Toronto, Sydney and Melbourne. The very most megacities are a result of bad development driving people from the countryside into the cities where they squattered lots and formed slums. There are only a few exceptions such as Tokyo, London or NYC. But in earlier times there haven't been real megacity growths in the developed regions. Toronto, Sydney and Melbourne are megacitylike, but no real megacities. No real developed country would find it something good to have a megacity.
> In the 1970s, Paris and London did many efforts to decentralize industry and thus population which acutally only stopped the growth, but couldn't reverse it.
> I find megacities fantastic, but the only ones I would ever consider to live are London, NYC and maybe Paris. Others have too little quality of life and I prefer a well-developed medium-sized city rather than an urban tarantula that has nothing else to offer than it's sheer size. And many of the megacities are such cities...


An interesting post, but I have to say that Sydney and Melbourne are far too small to be considered in this discussion.


----------



## Skyline_FFM

Justme said:


> An interesting post, but I have to say that Sydney and Melbourne are far too small to be considered in this discussion.


With megacity I mean a city over 5 million. If you consider those over 10 million, I think there won't be any new megacity in the developed world.


----------



## Skyline_FFM

Anderson Geimz said:


> Actually not at all...
> Pretty ignorant even...
> 
> Moscow, LA, Istanbul, Buenos Aires, Mexico City, Osaka...not worth living in?
> 
> And Sydney and Melbourne aren't even 1/2 megacities (<5 million).
> 
> Too many damn cityhaters on this website...:no:


Cityhater? No way. Osaka is a livable place, but not a place where I would like to live. Neither Moscow.
And see it as it is: Mexico City and Buenos Aires are far more developed than other megacities in the emerging world. But they are still far from having an overall quality of life like European, North American or Japanese cities! 
And yes, MC and Buenos Aires are (at least for me) no livable cities, neither Lagos, Mumbai, Sao Paulo, Rio or Delhi or Dhaka. But that is MY opinion and MY PERSONAL feeling about it! You may feel different.
Oh: And I didn't mention LA because I forgot it!


----------



## Justme

Skyline_FFM said:


> With megacity I mean a city over 5 million. If you consider those over 10 million, I think there won't be any new megacity in the developed world.


Fair enough, but then why consider a city like Melbourne, but not Frankfurt? Frankfurt's Rhein Main metropolitan area already exceeds 5million people, as do several other European cities. 

Personally though, I see 5million as far too small to described as a megacity.


----------



## Skyline_FFM

Yes, but it is one city corpus!


----------



## Anderson Geimz

Skyline_FFM said:


> The only comments that may lead to ugly discussions here are YOURS!!!! Someone should report this to a moderator in order to your comments being deleted!


Maybe I was a bit too harsh to you because what you said wasn't that spectacular, but I assure you...these things turn to suck because of people presenting their opinions as facts, not because of me commenting on that.

It's simply ludicrous to suggest that cities like Mexico City, Shanghai, Mumbai, Sao Paulo, etc, etc, etc have nothing to offer besides their sheer size and that you are better of living in Frankfurt or Hamburg (fine cities btw). Especially if you have never been to those places, like you so obviously haven't (Rio isn't a concrete jungle).

Anyway..., on LA...if there ever was a decentralized megacity, it's LA.
So if LA is a megacity, so is Rhein/Ruhr. I totally agree with justme and drunkenmunkey88


----------



## Skyline_FFM

Anderson Geimz said:


> Maybe I was a bit too harsh to you because what you said wasn't that spectacular, but I assure you...these things turn to suck because of people presenting their opinions as facts, not because of me commenting on that.
> 
> It's simply ludicrous to suggest that cities like Mexico City, Shanghai, Mumbai, Sao Paulo, etc, etc, etc have nothing to offer besides their sheer size and that you are better of living in Frankfurt or Hamburg (fine cities btw). Especially if you have never been to those places, like you so obviously haven't (Rio isn't a concrete jungle).
> 
> Anyway..., on LA...if their ever was a decentralized megacity, it's LA.
> So if LA is a megacity, so is Rhein/Ruhr. I totally agree with justme and drunkenmunkey88


I have been to Sao Paulo, Rio, Buenso Aires, Shanghai, Hong Kong and Mexico City. If you took out the forest hills from Rio, the city would be very uglier, and I think even uglier than Sao Paulo. I can surely tell you that I would NEVER like to live there! And FOR ME,, yes FOR ME it IS DE FACTO better to live in Frankfurt or Hamburg. If I would feel different I was living elsewhere... I don't hate the places, but as you know they aren't even on the list of cities with highest quality of life. Not even in their own countries!


----------



## drunkenmunkey888

Skyline_FFM said:


> Sorry, but if LA with 17 million inhabitants is not a true megacity, what is it then???!!!!:nuts:


I feel like LA doesn't have nearly enough density. It is more like a mega suburb. Google aerial pictures of it or check it out on google earth. Then compare it to Tokyo or New York and you'll see what I mean.


----------



## Anderson Geimz

Skyline, there you go again assuming anyone cares where you would or wouldn't live...
This whole thing turned sour with you claiming the only megacities worthwhile are New York, London, Tokyo and maybe nuts Paris...This is your opinion, thus only relevant to you. Maybe you should leave the grand statements for now, because I can assure you it's exactely that which offends on these forums.




drunkenmunkey888 said:


> I feel like LA doesn't have nearly enough density. It is more like a mega suburb. Google aerial pictures of it or check it out on google earth. Then compare it to Tokyo or New York and you'll see what I mean.


New York is dense in the center but LA actually is pretty dense overall.


----------



## Skyline_FFM

Anderson Geimz said:


> New York is dense in the center but LA actually is pretty dense overall.



This is true! Flying over LA you see pretty dense settling, mostly houses and no buildings, but also HOUSES can be dense!


----------



## Chrissib

Anderson Geimz said:


> New York is dense in the center but LA actually is pretty dense overall.


New York is dense over all. Of course, Manhattan is the densiest borough of the city(28,000/km²), but Brooklyn and the other boroughs (except Staten Island) have also densities over 5,000/km². The cities west of New York are also very dense, e.g. Union City or Guttenberg with around 20,000/km². Densiest city in the near of LA is Maywood, and it has only 9,500/km². LA has a very big area which is full developed with detached houses whereas New York has a smaller area, but with condos and other dense buildings.


----------



## Chrissib

Skyline_FFM said:


> Yes, but it is one city corpus!


So you consider only monocentric metro areas with over 10M people as megacities?


----------



## Skyline_FFM

Yes, this is what UNHabitat and UNO use as definition for a megacity.


----------



## Justme

Skyline_FFM said:


> Yes, this is what UNHabitat and UNO use as definition for a megacity.


So, for the sake of discussion, if the whole of Hesse was one single urban area without any countryside or forest, but made up of multiple city centers like the Rhein Ruhr, with 25million people, it still wouldn't be a megacity?


----------



## Skyline_FFM

No, it would be a multi-centre agglomeration,...


----------



## Chrissib

Skyline_FFM said:


> Yes, this is what UNHabitat and UNO use as definition for a megacity.


The figures of the UN are crap. For Germany and South Korea, they use the city-proper figures and are therefore comparing apples with oranges.


----------



## Westsidelife

drunkenmunkey888 said:


> I feel like LA doesn't have nearly enough density. *It is more like a mega suburb.* Google aerial pictures of it or check it out on google earth. Then compare it to Tokyo or New York and you'll see what I mean.


That's the dumbest thing ever. Since when is there a correlation between density and megacity status? The Los Angeles area is home to nearly 18 million people who come from all over the globe. A true megacity if I ever saw one.

Density in Los Angeles (BTW, these aren't single family homes):









From Flickr, by *Atwater Village Newbie*









From Flickr, by *KCgridlock*









From Flickr, by *Kaptain Krispy Kreme*



DaveofCali said:


> Koreatown
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollywood
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Westlake
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brentwood
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Westwood
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Santa Monica City
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marina Del Rey
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Playa Del Rey
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Venice Beach
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beverly Hills City
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Los Feliz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Glendale City
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sherman Oaks (yes, even in the sprawling San Fernando Valley)


----------



## Skyline_FFM

OMG, how can a person say LA was not a megacity? It is THE megacity!!!!


----------



## Blackpool88

Anderson Geimz said:


> Skyline, there you go again assuming anyone cares where you would or wouldn't live...
> This whole thing turned sour with you claiming the only megacities worthwhile are New York, London, Tokyo and maybe nuts Paris...This is your opinion, thus only relevant to you. Maybe you should leave the grand statements for now, because I can assure you it's exactely that which offends on these forums.


Bloody hell, are personal opinions not allowed on SSC anymore?? you're so dull mate. Why is he not allowed to give his opinion on which megacities he would like to live in??? You are assuming that anybody is going to give you any credibility and respect when you speak to other forumers as if you are some divine intellectual. Don't talk to us about what may offend other forumers. To quote Jesus in Matthews gospel, "Why do you observe the splinter in you brother's eye and never notice the plank in your own?"




And those LA pictures are amazing! I definitely consider it a Megacity even if you find people claiming that it's technical population is around 4 million!


----------



## trainrover

The Cebuano Exultor said:


> By 2050, all countries in the world will be developed except for much of Sub-Saharan Africa. Therefore, the only non-developed mega-cities by then will be:
> 
> List [in no particular ranked-order]:
> 1. Lagos
> 2. Kinshasa
> 3. Addis Ababa
> 4. Khartoum[/U].


I couldn't disagree more than with your claims above, I must debunk your imagination!

Just about every developed-country's major cities risk becoming megacities, coz, if you pay attention, the majority of the current ones are in tropical and subtropical areas that'll have to empty over to other places due to becoming overly stressed by climate. I reckon that the farther away they must resettle, then more the relief for those poor migrating ex-dwellers....






Westsidelife said:


> That's the dumbest thing ever. Since when is there a correlation between density and megacity status? The Los Angeles area is home to nearly 18 million people who come from all over the globe. A true megacity if I ever saw one.
> 
> Density in Los Angeles (BTW, these aren't single family homes):


I gotta admit, you have a point, plus you've shown me something I hadn't known all this time. But I wish you'd been courteous by not clipping the context out of DaveofCali's posting that would appear to be hailing from some other thread . . . really, I could've learned more had you maintained its integrity....


----------



## Anderson Geimz

Blackpool88 said:


> Bloody hell, are personal opinions not allowed on SSC anymore?? you're so dull mate. Why is he not allowed to give his opinion on which megacities he would like to live in??? You are assuming that anybody is going to give you any credibility and respect when you speak to other forumers as if you are some divine intellectual. Don't talk to us about what may offend other forumers. To quote Jesus in Matthews gospel, "Why do you observe the splinter in you brother's eye and never notice the plank in your own?"


Please bugger of and don't quote the fucking bible to me...:|

We already laid this issue to rest, an issue you shouldn't interfered with to begin with...


----------



## Skyline_FFM

> Originally Posted by The Cebuano Exultor
> By 2050, all countries in the world will be developed except for much of Sub-Saharan Africa. Therefore, the only non-developed mega-cities by then will be:
> 
> List [in no particular ranked-order]:
> 1. Lagos
> 2. Kinshasa
> 3. Addis Ababa
> 4. Khartoum.


Sorry, but the only countries that will be full developed until 2050, now emerging are Turkey, Chile, Uruguay, Argentina, Malaysia, Thailand, perhaps South Africa, not even China, India or Brazil can be developed nations until then! They have way too large populations with too much poverty, in the case of Brazil and India the redistribution of income to lower classes is almost impossible! The gap between rich and poor will make it impossible to become full developed countries! :nono:


----------



## philvia

i dont consider LA a "real" city... just a giant clusterfuck of suburbs


----------



## Manila-X

Anderson Geimz said:


> Maybe I was a bit too harsh to you because what you said wasn't that spectacular, but I assure you...these things turn to suck because of people presenting their opinions as facts, not because of me commenting on that.
> 
> It's simply ludicrous to suggest that cities like Mexico City, Shanghai, Mumbai, Sao Paulo, etc, etc, etc have nothing to offer besides their sheer size and that you are better of living in Frankfurt or Hamburg (fine cities btw). Especially if you have never been to those places, like you so obviously haven't (Rio isn't a concrete jungle).
> 
> Anyway..., on LA...if there ever was a decentralized megacity, it's LA.
> So if LA is a megacity, so is Rhein/Ruhr. I totally agree with justme and drunkenmunkey88


The only thing is, the The Rhein-Rhur area doesn't have a *key city* or a main city kinda like what San Francisco is doing to The Bay Area. The towns and cities located in the Rhein-Rhur are equally important.


----------



## Westsidelife

philvia said:


> i dont consider LA a "real" city... just a giant clusterfuck of suburbs


Those aerial shots I provided are of areas that are just as dense as those you'd typically find in NYC and San Francisco. The only thing missing is the transit.


----------



## drunkenmunkey888

Westsidelife said:


> Those aerial shots I provided are of areas that are just as dense as those you'd typically find in NYC and San Francisco. The only thing missing is the transit.


Are the pictures you uploaded the densest parts of LA? Because if they are, they do not even compare to neighborhoods of average density _outside_ of Manhattan. Please take a look:









Queens









Bronx









Brooklyn









More Brooklyn


So as you see, LA's density doesn't come anywhere close to NYC's. NYC is in the same league as Tokyo and Hong Kong. There is no way you can argue that LA is comparable with Tokyo and Hong Kong.

Pertinent to the thread topic though, you bring up a good point. LA doesn't have the mass transit that comes with being a megacity. Its kind of hard to acknowledge a car-reliant city as a megacity on the international scale.


----------



## Chrissib

Paris tops everything in density!^^


----------



## Westsidelife

drunkenmunkey888 said:


> Are the pictures you uploaded the densest parts of LA? Because if they are, they do not even compare to neighborhoods of average density _outside_ of Manhattan.


Picking and choosing at your own convenience...



drunkenmunkey888 said:


> So as you see, LA's density doesn't come anywhere close to NYC's.


LA's density compares to many areas outside of Manhattan. For example, this is an aerial shot of Brooklyn and Queens:









From Flickr, by *dsjeffries*

That's not too dense. And it most certainly doesn't compare to the likes of Tokyo and Hong Kong. 



drunkenmunkey888 said:


> NYC is in the same league as Tokyo and Hong Kong.


Only Manhattan.



drunkenmunkey888 said:


> There is no way you can argue that LA is comparable with Tokyo and Hong Kong.


Never made that argument.



drunkenmunkey888 said:


> Pertinent to the thread topic though, you bring up a good point. LA doesn't have the mass transit that comes with being a megacity. Its kind of hard to acknowledge a car-reliant city as a megacity on the international scale.


LA has the second largest bus system in the US with the second highest ridership.


----------



## Westsidelife

Chrissib said:


> Paris tops everything in density!^^


Asian cities are tops.


----------



## brianmoon85

whatever, Seoul South Korea is on top of the list and the best city in the world:banana:


----------



## Chrissib

See for yourself! 

Tokyo:












Paris:












Hong Kong:












New York:












Seoul:












I didn't find a map for LA that is colorable.


----------



## Westsidelife

^ World's densest cities (Forbes):

http://yeinjee.com/discovery/20-densest-cities-in-the-world/


----------



## monkeyronin

Westsidelife said:


> ^ World's densest cities (Forbes):
> 
> http://yeinjee.com/discovery/20-densest-cities-in-the-world/


Those are based on city's urban areas, which were taken from here: http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/largest-cities-area-125.html


----------



## Westsidelife

^ City Mayors quoted Forbes, not vice versa.


----------



## isaidso

Chrissib said:


> See for yourself!


When it comes to density, Paris doesn't top everything. You need to dig a lot deeper. I'll point you in the right direction. Start in Mumbai.


----------



## Minato ku

Of course the city of Paris limit has not changed since 1860 and nowaday it represent only the inner city.
In the case of Paris : London would be only inner London and New York would be Manhattan.
It show how using offical city limit in stupid 
by exemple Chinses city limit are bigger than many country and include a large majority of rural area.

If we include the perpherical urban district Paris has 6.8 million inhabitants and a density of 9,000inh/km².
That's very dense for an European city but it is not the for many asian cities.

The list of Fobes is better because it compare urban area, not city limit and Paris like most western world city has low density suburbs and sprawll.
The density of Paris urban area is only 3,000 inh/km² for over 10 million inhabitants.

We shouldn't forget the difference between residencial density and the building density.
The two Parisian arrondissements with the lowest residencial density are in reality the two most densely build.
It is also the case for Tokyo and Manhattan.


----------



## Igsuonnimo

*Metro Manila the future learning center*











Metro Manila the future learning center for *Strategic Studies*


----------



## gladisimo

^^ Even in the case of HK, I dare not input elsewhere, but it is slightly misleading. The vast majority of the population in the lower density districts are concentrated into small new towns because of the mountainous terrain. 

It doesn't make sense without putting the cities to scale, and considering the population. HK is actually a fairly small city with developed hot spots surrounded by large swaths of impossible/very difficult to develop mountainous areas


----------



## gladisimo

A quick snapshot to show the relative sizes of the areas depicted


----------



## friedemann

> Why is it that Germany has developed in this way? is it because of central planning to have all of these equal cities or has it happened naturally over time after the unification of the different states? Its difficult in Britain and France because Paris and London have been number one for thousands of years, although the Government is now taking (very small) steps to decentralize some industries to the provincial cities now. Do you think its too late for Britain to change and follow Germany's model?


If you look at the past, France and Britain has always been strong states with dominating capitals (London, Paris).
Germany has been a rag rug for hundreds of years, a conglomerate of dozens of small principalities, kingdoms and dukedoms. The people identified thereselves more as Prussians, Bavarians, Swabians etc. than as Germans. The German Empire was a very slight construct and the ties between the single dukedoms etc. have often been not very deeply.


----------



## Manila-X

drunkenmunkey888 said:


> Are the pictures you uploaded the densest parts of LA? Because if they are, they do not even compare to neighborhoods of average density _outside_ of Manhattan. Please take a look:
> 
> So as you see, LA's density doesn't come anywhere close to NYC's. NYC is in the same league as Tokyo and Hong Kong. There is no way you can argue that LA is comparable with Tokyo and Hong Kong.
> 
> Pertinent to the thread topic though, you bring up a good point. LA doesn't have the mass transit that comes with being a megacity. Its kind of hard to acknowledge a car-reliant city as a megacity on the international scale.


Despite the high-rise density and urbanity, HK is *not* considered a megacity since its population alone is around 8 million. A megacity would have a population of 10 million or more. To consider HK a megacity would includes neighbouring cities within the Pearl River Delta including Shenzhen, Macao, Guangzhou and Dongguan.


----------



## dhuwman

^^ do you think HK has reached its limit? I mean, population wise.


----------



## Manila-X

dhuwman said:


> ^^ do you think HK has reached its limit? I mean, population wise.


For now. But HK can still take 10 million residents. The only way of housing them is to build up.

But even after 1997, mainlanders cannot just enter HK so what happens is alot of them move to Shenzhen. Currently, the population of Shenzhen is booming.


----------



## dhuwman

^^ I thought so. Shenzhen has a good chance to surpass HK in size, although I doubt the same will happen in importance at least for quite some time.


----------



## Blackpool88

Anderson Geimz said:


> Wikipedia is great, but they do suck on population figures.
> 
> What kind of idiot would believe "Manchester-Liverpool" tops Barcelona...
> 
> It's an apples and oranges comparison...


Yeah to be honest I've spent time in all cities and I can definitely believe that Greater Manchester and Merseyside combined has a higher population then Barcelona.


----------



## Justme

I believe there is a language issue defining the metropolitan region of Barce. When I was last reading the official council website, they always referred to their Metropolitan area as the Àmbit metropolità de Barcelona with 4.8million which covers 4028km². On investigation, this was the closest comparison to other international metropolitan area's based on commuting patterns and not solely urban area. 

What Wikipedia describes as the metropolitan area looks like the urban area and a slight bit more (of cause including those mountains in the middle, but they act much like a harbour would in an urban area). It is only 633km² and pretty small for a metropolitan area based on commuting. (Frankfurt's official metro area is over 11,000km²).

Unfortunately there is no international standard to define metropolitan area's so they can be easily compared, although many governments have been looking into this recently.


----------



## Xusein

Italocittadino said:


>


Wow, that is one nice map. Thanks. :yes:

And it pretty much solidifies what I thought for the longest time: From Springfield, Massachusetts to the Northern Virginia suburbs, there is an almost unbroken stretch of over *500 km *(there is some rural areas) of urbanity and suburban areas, called the Northeast Megalopolis. It includes: Hartford, New Haven, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington. 

Yes, everyone knows this already, but what makes it different than other definitions is that it does not include Boston. Going down I-95 after New Haven, the massive suburban areas end, and don't really come back until Providence. The massive rural area known as Eastern Connecticut is the gap between Boston and the rest of the Megalopolis. Ironically, Boston has a better chance of being joined with the rest of the NE corridor by Springfield and Worcester joining, which are about 80km apart. 

Instead, the Megalopolis goes up north I-91 after New Haven instead of east. You don't know where Hartford's suburbs begin, it's been blurred. Same with Springfield. If you go down I-91 from Springfield and meet I-95 at New Haven, you have an almost unbroken stretch of urbanity for over 500km. There are some breaks between Wilmington and Baltimore, but it's relatively insignificant, at least compared to the gap between New Haven and Providence.


----------



## babybackribs2314

10ROT said:


> Wow, that is one nice map. Thanks. :yes:
> 
> And it pretty much solidifies what I thought for the longest time: From Springfield, Massachusetts to the Northern Virginia suburbs, there is an almost unbroken stretch of over *500 km *(there is some rural areas) of urbanity and suburban areas, called the Northeast Megalopolis. It includes: Hartford, New Haven, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington.
> 
> Yes, everyone knows this already, but what makes it different than other definitions is that it does not include Boston. Going down I-95 after New Haven, the massive suburban areas end, and don't really come back until Providence. The massive rural area known as Eastern Connecticut is the gap between Boston and the rest of the Megalopolis. Ironically, Boston has a better chance of being joined with the rest of the NE corridor by Springfield and Worcester joining, which are about 80km apart.
> 
> Instead, the Megalopolis goes up north I-91 after New Haven instead of east. You don't know where Hartford's suburbs begin, it's been blurred. Same with Springfield. If you go down I-91 from Springfield and meet I-95 at New Haven, you have an almost unbroken stretch of urbanity for over 500km. There are some breaks between Wilmington and Baltimore, but it's relatively insignificant, at least compared to the gap between New Haven and Providence.


Eh, despite the gap between Boston and the corridor, it's still considered part of the Megalopolis. 

I've read some mention DC as a potential future megacity, which is definitely possible if you consider it with Baltimore. DC-Baltimore is really the only part of the Megalopolis with continued moderate population growth, as the suburbs and downtowns of both nodes continue to expand (DC faster than Baltimore). DC has kind of enveloped Baltimore already and that'll continue over the next fifty years. The current combined population is ~8.3 million (I think it's a little under six for the DC metro and ~2.4 for Baltimore), and I believe it's projected to surpass 10 million ~2025. I'd guess that DC is by far the biggest metro area in the developed world without any real skyscrapers... we have high rises in areas (Rosslyn has the tallest, Tysons has the most jobs, and there's also high rises in Silver Spring and Bethesda) but none are over 400', and the ones between 300-400' are only in Rosslyn. 

By 2050 the Megalopolis will be a continuous suburban/urban area with no farmland in between from the southern suburbs of Richmond to the northern suburbs of Boston. How many people? I dunno, maybe 60-70 million?


----------



## Anderson Geimz

kids said:


> This has nothing to do with which is better or more important. It's just fact. More people live in the Manchester - Liverpool metro area than the Barcelona metro area.


:|
First of all metro Barcelona is 5,327,827 on 4,268 km², while Greater Manchester (2,550,000 on 1,276 km²) and Merseyside (1,366,000 on 645 km²) are 3,916,000 on 1,921 km². Granted, these metropolitan counties are a rather strict definition of "metropolitan area". Barcelona's is much less strict, but one could make the case that a city like Barcelona has a lot more pull on the surrounding area. 
But...even extending the boundries for Manchester-Liverpool, you are not going to top 5,3 million unless you include West Yorkshire (Leeds). Doing so also means topping the 4,000 km² of metro Barcelona AND really stretching the concept of a "combined metro area". If you do that, you might as well extend Barcelona's combined metro area to Girona and Taragona, which makes more sense...Again this means Barcelona still is the bigger city.

Moral of the story...Don't compare apples to oranges. Barcelona is the bigger city (per the combined metro area definition).


----------



## tk780

Anderson Geimz said:


> Rhein-Ruhr is MUCH smaller in area than the average American metro and cities are MUCH closer.
> The Ruhr part is continuous build up area, and by American standards the Rhein part probably is too...


The Rhine Ruhr Area is a continuous built-up area not only by American, but also by European standards. According to the French INSEE institute, it is the most populous urban area in the European Union.


----------



## PedroGabriel

kids said:


> here it's 8th, in between Madrid and Barcelona, actually listed differently, more, as 5,019,446
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_European_cities_and_metropolitan_areas#cite_note-mc-0


:shocked:
aw, that's a very biased British article. incredible.


----------



## Federicoft

To me, out of that list, it isn't surely Manchester the city whose figures are inflated.


----------



## kids

Anderson Geimz said:


> :|
> First of all metro Barcelona is 5,327,827 on 4,268 km², while Greater Manchester (2,550,000 on 1,276 km²) and Merseyside (1,366,000 on 645 km²) are *3,916,00*0 on 1,921 km². Granted, these metropolitan counties are a rather strict definition of "metropolitan area". Barcelona's is much less strict, but one could make the case that a city like Barcelona has a lot more pull on the surrounding area.
> But...even extending the boundries for Manchester-Liverpool, you are not going to top 5,3 million unless you include West Yorkshire (Leeds). Doing so also means topping the 4,000 km² of metro Barcelona AND really stretching the concept of a "combined metro area". If you do that, you might as well extend Barcelona's combined metro area to Girona and Taragona, which makes more sense...Again this means Barcelona still is the bigger city.
> 
> Moral of the story...Don't compare apples to oranges. Barcelona is the bigger city (per the combined metro area definition).


This figure is incorrect. As you havn't included the towns of Warrington and Widnes and Halton the towns that join Greater Manchester and Merseyside together. :|

it should be around 4,200,000, as on Manchester's wiki article.

- Greater Manchester - 2,550,000
- Merseyside - 1,365,901
- Warrington - 194,000
- Halton - 119,500
- Widnes - 53,410

Using this figure it is around 12th. But I don't know where the 5 mil figure came from. It probably includes more towns in Cheshire and Lancashire so may be valid.


----------



## Anderson Geimz

You do know how to read don't you? :|

And the 5 million comes from including Leeds, which is a bit of a stretch...


----------



## kids

Anderson Geimz said:


> You do know how to read don't you? :|
> 
> And the 5 million comes from including Leeds, which is a bit of a stretch...


I'm not sure it does y'know.

But whatever, i really don't care, i never intended to compare them. I only quoted figures. Go contradict them at the source if you want an argument.


----------



## PedroGabriel

Federicoft said:


> To me, out of that list, it isn't surely Manchester the city whose figures are inflated.


which? Moscow? 

And they put only one million for Porto, which is less than the official Porto Metro Area. Using the same standard that's actually 3 million or more. that article clearly has double standards.


----------



## Anderson Geimz

PedroGabriel said:


> which? Moscow?
> 
> And they put only one million for Porto, which is less than the official Porto Metro Area. Using the same standard that's actually 3 million or more. that article clearly has double standards.


Common dude...3 million for Porto that aint a metro area either. That's another overinflated combined metro "region" which makes American overinflated CSA's blush.


----------



## PedroGabriel

Ok, but you've looked at this ranking?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_European_cities_and_metropolitan_areas

looking at that table and the reality, 3 million for Porto it isn't at all far fetched, that population is only 50 km radius from Porto city centre, all linked by motorways, or freeways or what you may call it, light rail and trains. The region is in fact already interdependent, but not in a suburb way, but more like the Rhur area, in fact, Porto is stronger than any nearby city, so it has more weight in the region than any Rhur city has there. Don't be wrong with the official statistics for the city, as in fact there the reality was the reserve, they officially closed the expanding city with a belt road in the 19th century.

I live in a city 27 km from Porto and I don't consider it to be a suburb (so should no one serious), it is a seed for a new metropolis







, but you can see daily that links are growing fast paced, and it has already worried some local politicians that want to preserve the remaining local culture, that's to say that Porto has several suburbs, so several towns without a soul, but those are located very near the city border.

You can't see that in google museum... ooops google maps.


----------



## Skyline_FFM

Anderson Geimz said:


> Common dude...3 million for Porto that aint a metro area either. That's another overinflated combined metro "region" which makes American overinflated CSA's blush.


You said exactly what I was thinking. If you believe the Portuguese forumers, Lisbon has 5 million and Porto 3 million inhabitants. And there would be only 1 million left for the rest of the country! :lol::lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Skyline_FFM

PedroGabriel said:


> Ok, but you've looked at this ranking?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_European_cities_and_metropolitan_areas
> 
> looking at that table and the reality, 3 million for Porto it isn't at all far fetched, that population is only 50 km radius from Porto city centre, all linked by motorways, or freeways or what you may call it, light rail and trains. The region is in fact already interdependent, but not in a suburb way, but more like the Rhur area, in fact, Porto is stronger than any nearby city, so it has more weight in the region than any Rhur city has there. Don't be wrong with the official statistics for the city, as in fact there the reality was the reserve, they officially closed the expanding city with a belt road in the 19th century.
> 
> I live in a city 27 km from Porto and I don't consider it to be a suburb (so should no one serious), it is a seed for a new metropolis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , but you can see daily that links are growing fast paced, and it has already worried some local politicians that want to preserve the remaining local culture, that's to say that Porto has several suburbs, so several towns without a soul, but those are located very near the city border.
> 
> You can't see that in google museum... ooops google maps.


Wiki stats! Wow! So reliable!!! :lol: 
Ruhr is THE important area and surely way more important for Germany than Porto for Portugal!


----------



## Federicoft

PedroGabriel said:


> which? Moscow?
> 
> And they put only one million for Porto, which is less than the official Porto Metro Area. Using the same standard that's actually 3 million or more. that article clearly has double standards.


To me the Spanish cities seems quite overinflated.
E.g. Barcelona metro is 5,327,827 on 4,268 km², which means a density of 1,248 per km². That's way too sparse to consider it as a single metropolitan area (it is similar to the population density of whole _countries_ such as Bangladesh!).

What about the Randstad then? And even Milan would have some 6-6,5 millions people in its metro using the same criterion, which I don't think is a trustworthy criterion of course, but you know jingoism is boundless.

Manchester-Liverpool metro is definitely bigger.


----------



## tablemtn

The Rhein-Ruhr region really doesn't feel like a single metro area. And it doesn't behave like one, either. I think there is certainly a solid urban axis running west to east from Duisburg to Bochum. But Dusseldorf, Cologne, and Bonn are all disconnected from this, and from each other.


----------



## Skyline_FFM

tablemtn said:


> The Rhein-Ruhr region really doesn't feel like a single metro area. And it doesn't behave like one, either. I think there is certainly a solid urban axis running west to east from Duisburg to Bochum. But Dusseldorf, Cologne, and Bonn are all disconnected from this, and from each other.


:sly: Have you ever been there? And it stretches out from cologne to DORTMUND not Bochum! :lol:


----------



## Blackpool88

Anderson Geimz said:


> You do know how to read don't you? :|
> 
> And the 5 million comes from including Leeds, which is a bit of a stretch...


I dont think it does actually. Including west Yorkshire in the total would take the population to around 7 million and trounce Barcelonas on a similar land area. The 5 million figure comes from including some Lancashire towns and cities like the Preston area which is around 350,000.


----------



## Chrissib

There are three of em:

BosWash, Blue Banana and Taiheiyo-Belt.


----------



## isaidso

There are a lot more than 3. There are probably 3 alone just in China. I'm sure a few in India, and few more elsewhere.


----------



## Chrissib

isaidso said:


> There are a lot more than 3. There are probably 3 alone just in China. I'm sure a few in India, and few more elsewhere.


Of course, but three in the developed countries.


----------



## lindow

Chrissib said:


> There are three of em:
> 
> BosWash, Blue Banana and Taiheiyo-Belt.


I agree with you.

 Pacific(Taiheiyo) Belt
population : roughly 82.9 million


----------



## BrickellResidence

oil prices in mexico is 18 dollars!!!!! thats why mexico is experiencing a rapid growth.


----------



## isaidso

Chrissib said:


> Of course, but three in the developed countries.


OK. I forgot that criteria.


----------



## Skyline_FFM

isaidso said:


> Some people say that about having to live in a city of 1 million. It all depends what you are used to, what level of energy you like, and your tolerance for crowds.


I think it is rather how developed a megacity is. Cities like NYC or Tokyo with a reasonable quality of life, technology that makes life comfortable and surely the security reason. And most cities in Latin America and Africa are the most dangerous places in the world to live. I can't imagine myself living there! But not because of the size.


----------



## :jax:

The city growth is largely over in the developed world and will be over in a generation or two in the developing world. 

Cities have been fed by two long-term trends, rapid population growth and people leaving the countryside. The world's population growth is flattening out. Population is already flat in most of the developed world, the USA is the notable exception, and is flattening very fast in good parts of the developing world, those countries with good prospects. 

In the developed world most have already left the countryside. Farming is no longer labour-intensive and subsistence farming is not attractive. The same movement is happening to the developing world, notably China and India with rural populations in the hundreds of millions. This "human reservoir", feeding the megacities and providing cheap labour in the factories, is huge but sinking fast.

Migration may add some population to the developed world, but as the rest of the world gets richer the incentive to move gets smaller, and the rich world is likely to keep immigration on a low level. This means the total population will be fixed, and new megacities will have to attract people from other cities, towns, suburbs. 

Will everyone live in the sububs with white picket fences? In high-density regions like Europe and East Asia that is highly unlikely, there is simply no room, there is a continuing trend to zone regions as nature resorts and the need for farmland doesn't go away just because there are fewer farmers. As the USA grows it too will have high-density regions. There are also disadvantages of living in a suburb, like increased transport cost and time. However unless the costs of living in a suburb get really high I wouldn't expect a vast exodus from the suburbs. The safest bet is that the number of suburbanites will remain roughly the same as today.

Will people prefer the small town, the mid-size city, the huge city? People move where the jobs are. If Istanbul hadn't been a megacity already, it would be my candidate. It is well situated. With the borders gone, cities like Bratislava and Vienna are likely to grow toward each other, with Györ as a satellite. But this would only mean a larger city, not a megacity. The same goes for Copenhagen and Malmö. A city like Berlin would grow, but it will not double in size. 

The best hope for megacities would be a dramatic global warming. This would drive people mostly northwards, concentrating them in ever-bigger cities. However we would have to go for the most extreme, and unlikely, scenarios for this to happen. Barring this or any other drama, I would predict slow change, with trends like people preferring warm weather over cold, coastal living over riverfronts over inland probably continuing. In such an environment you will need 10 people preferring to live in a 10 million city for every person preferring to live in a 1 million city (not to speak of smaller cities and towns).


----------



## El Mariachi

Chicago-Milwaukee will be a megacity in the near future.


----------



## Ian

Skyline_FFM said:


> I think it is rather how developed a megacity is. Cities like NYC or Tokyo with a reasonable quality of life, technology that makes life comfortable and surely the security reason. *And most cities in Latin America and Africa are the most dangerous places in the world to live*. I can't imagine myself living there! But not because of the size.


:lol: :lol: 

This is very funny because i live in a country in Latin America and the other day we were talking with some friends and we were thinking how people in US cities feel like?? living in those dangerous cities with extremely high murder rates and all that... I really can't imagine living there...

and sorry, where do you live, and how much have you travel around the world??? :nuts:


----------



## Skyline_FFM

Ian said:


> :lol: :lol:
> 
> This is very funny because i live in a country in Latin America and the other day we were talking with some friends and we were thinking how people in US cities feel like?? living in those dangerous cities with extremely high murder rates and all that... I really can't imagine living there...
> 
> and sorry, where do you live, and how much have you travel around the world??? :nuts:


They ARE the most dangerous places on Earth. Maybe not your city. I would exclude Buenos Aires and perhaps Santiago from it. But Caracas, Bogotá, Sao Paulo and Rio are famous for their violence! 
I do not want to travel to Latin America except Chile and Argentina (where I already travelled to). Friends of mine have bad experiences they shared with me. And violence is one of the reasons for not travlling to other parts of the continent. Murder rates between 20 and 60 murders per 100k inhabitants is way too high!
I prefer Europe and Asia which I experienced as very friendly and well developed and safe. Istanbul btw is the world's safest megacity!


----------



## stewartrama

Ian said:


> :lol: :lol:
> 
> This is very funny because i live in a country in Latin America and the other day we were talking with some friends and we were thinking how people in US cities feel like?? living in those dangerous cities with extremely high murder rates and all that... I really can't imagine living there...
> 
> and sorry, where do you live, and how much have you travel around the world??? :nuts:


psh please the US does not have higher murder rates than anywhere in South America. Brasil, Columbia, Chile...PLEASE. Maybe you don't see crime where you live but the US does not have high murder rates, and South American countries are infamous for having high crime and corruption.


----------



## Blackpool88

stewartrama said:


> psh please the US does not have higher murder rates than anywhere in South America. Brasil, Columbia, Chile...PLEASE. Maybe you don't see crime where you live but the US does not have high murder rates, and South American countries are infamous for having high crime and corruption.


but compared to Europe North American cities do have insane murder levels


----------



## Looking/Up

I wouldn't say Toronto's murder rate is anything to be paranoid about (as it too is a North American city). According to the Public Safety website for Ontario, Toronto's murder rate is 2 people per 100 000... As a comparison, Baltimore's murder rate is 43 people per 100 000, and even San Francisco is 11.6 per 100 000. 
According to the BBC, Toronto's murder rate is lower such cities as Stocholm, London, Copenhagen, Paris and Berlin.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/153988.stm

Anyway, I'm only writing this to show that not all of North America is a hotbed for crime and that the percieved safety of Europe is not always accurate.


----------



## karim aboussir

any one know this ???
in the world 50 nations are getting better and growing
60 nations remains about the same 
the remaining 80 or so are not doing well I am trying to get the source that I read somewhere
example mexico china getting better
same USA france 
worst somalia zimbabwe


----------



## Skyline_FFM

Looking/Up said:


> I wouldn't say Toronto's murder rate is anything to be paranoid about (as it too is a North American city). According to the Public Safety website for Ontario, Toronto's murder rate is 2 people per 100 000... As a comparison, Baltimore's murder rate is 43 people per 100 000, and even San Francisco is 11.6 per 100 000.
> According to the BBC, Toronto's murder rate is lower such cities as Stocholm, London, Copenhagen, Paris and Berlin.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/153988.stm
> 
> Anyway, I'm only writing this to show that not all of North America is a hotbed for crime and that the percieved safety of Europe is not always accurate.


Least figures of Statistische Bundesamt show Berlin with 1.8 murders per 100k, Hannover is the "worst" of all German cities in this regard: It has 2.2 murders per 100k!!!! That is a lot and more than twice the German (0.8) average!!! :runaway: Hannover is the city of God!!! :lol:


----------



## Skyline_FFM

karim aboussir said:


> any one know this ???
> in the world 50 nations are getting better and growing
> 60 nations remains about the same
> the remaining 80 or so are not doing well I am trying to get the source that I read somewhere
> example mexico china getting better
> same USA france
> worst somalia zimbabwe


If you tell me, WHAT is the topic, I will probably be able to help you. Growing crime rates or growing economy....


----------



## dlbritnot

I've actually heard the opposite in a "Cities in a Global Economy" class. Most "third world" countries are the fastest growing and important future to the world's economy. As for the "developed world," population growth is stagnant or shrinking while their economies aren't. I just don't think that economic growth should dictate how society functions.


----------



## Skyline_FFM

Yes, but not even the BRICs will get close to the per capitas of the developed world...


----------



## Blackpool88

Looking/Up said:


> I wouldn't say Toronto's murder rate is anything to be paranoid about (as it too is a North American city). According to the Public Safety website for Ontario, Toronto's murder rate is 2 people per 100 000... As a comparison, Baltimore's murder rate is 43 people per 100 000, and even San Francisco is 11.6 per 100 000.
> According to the BBC, Toronto's murder rate is lower such cities as Stocholm, London, Copenhagen, Paris and Berlin.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/153988.stm
> 
> Anyway, I'm only writing this to show that not all of North America is a hotbed for crime and that the percieved safety of Europe is not always accurate.


yeah sorry, I meant to say American cities not North American cities I mean look at how that list is dominated by American cities! I mean London has 2.1 Paris 3.3 and Washington has 69 per 100,000 there is a serious problem in American cities and I don't think they should comment on the safety of Latin American cities with figures like these for their own major cities!




then again the link yo posted is 10 years old maybe things have changed


----------



## El Mariachi

^there is a huge difference between murders in the U.S. and Latin America. Try visiting Washington D.C. and seeing if it stacks up to Mexico City, Bogota, Rio de Janiero, Caracas, or San Salvador.


----------



## Blackpool88

Judge Phillip Banks said:


> ^there is a huge difference between murders in the U.S. and Latin America. Try visiting Washington D.C. and seeing if it stacks up to Mexico City, Bogota, Rio de Janiero, Caracas, or San Salvador.


yeah my point was, you're own cities aint got alot to shout about in terms of murder rates compared to other global cities so people shouldn't put the boot in on Latin American cities


----------



## Xusein

stewartrama said:


> yea it has a perfect location xcept its 2 close 2 NYC 2 b a megacity. If somebody grows up in Hartford, goes 2 college, etc., they're not gonna go back 2 hartford 2 find a job, they're gonna go 2 NYC.


I never said that Hartford is going to be a megacity. :|

That idea is preposterous since it barely has over 1 million people. My point was that it would eventually be merged into the NYC because the boundaries between the two are blurring and will eventually disappear. And that's in Hartford's interest because of our much lower cost of living. 

As for that whole "growing up in Hartford" thing, how do you know?


----------



## kalibanism

well, in the future the cities in the north-east will merge... if there's enough gas to feed the hungry commuter's cars


----------



## 6-6-6

monkeyronin said:


> Shenyang? As one of China's largest cities, surely the growth won't slow down. And Singapore I believe also has fairly high growth, though probably not enough to reach mega-city status by 2050. If immigration rates pick up slightly in Spain in the near future, Madrid could easily make it. And while San Fran certainly won't reach 10 million by then, the Bay Area at least surely will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sao Paulo is already larger (*as is Mexico City, which will probably be the large of the two, 42 years from now*).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And why would that happen?
> 
> hmm, and maybe people from rural China will just all of a sudden stop going to Shanghai. Wait, that would be illogical, just as a sudden halt of migration to Canada would be.


I agree!

Mexico city's current population: 23.8 millions.


----------



## El Mariachi

Blackpool88 said:


> yeah my point was, you're own cities aint got alot to shout about in terms of murder rates compared to other global cities so people shouldn't put the boot in on Latin American cities


in murder rates, yes. But other world cities do trounce American cities in other crime statistics such as property crime, burglary, and assults--which are more likelier to affect normal people. American murder rates are high, but there are few places in this country are "no-go" zones like Latin American slums, favelas, ranchos, etc. A traveler could easily spend a vacation in Detroit with few worries about safety. The same could not be said about most major Latin American cities where crime is rampant.


----------



## Skyline_FFM

It is about developed world. I don't catch, why people are still discussing China, Latina america or other cities and regions that aren't considered developed...


----------



## ChrisZwolle

10ROT said:


> I never said that Hartford is going to be a megacity. :|
> 
> That idea is preposterous since it barely has over 1 million people. My point was that it would eventually be merged into the NYC because the boundaries between the two are blurring and will eventually disappear.


The suburbs of Hartford are almost continuous with the suburbs of New Haven, and New Haven is connected to Bridgeport, Bridgeport to Stamford, and BAM, you're in New York suburbia.


----------



## Azia

*re no*



polako said:


> Is Chicago the only urban area in the developed world that is growing fast enough to become a megacity by 2050?


look at madrid it will have a 10 million agglomeracion , before 2050 look at Philadelphia , Dallles - forthworth ,miami-fll,atlanta ,toronto and the bay area , but its in interesting point anyway


----------



## karim aboussir

according to recent studies casablanca morocco the biggest city in morocco overestimated the population it is much smaller than we thought it is only 4 million people city and metro area but it is so sprawlly looks much bigger in size but it will never be a mega metro area not even in 2050


----------



## Skyline_FFM

Azia said:


> look at madrid it will have a 10 million agglomeracion , before 2050 look at Philadelphia , Dallles - forthworth ,miami-fll,atlanta ,toronto and the bay area , but its in interesting point anyway


No, Madrid will not even pass 8 million. Pop growth in Spain is stagnant in the major cities and shrinking nationwide,... :sly:


----------



## isaidso

I keep hearing about massive immigration to Madrid and Barcelona. What information am I not getting? In the developed world, Chicago will probably get to that 10 million level first. Then Toronto. These are the 2 most likely that I can see.


----------



## Skyline_FFM

Well, Spain has a decreasing national population. There are many immigrants from Latin America (or better South America, especially from Colombia, Venezuela, Peru, Brazil and Venezuela) and North Africa (especially from Morocco), the very most of them are illegals. But I don't think Spain will tolerate 4 million illegal immigrants pouring just into Madrid!  If there were ever so many immigrants to Spain! The Spanish population is - and I understand it - already very aggressive seeing these immigrants stealing and begging. So I am optimistic that Spain will solve this severe problem soon. Until now the government didn't do it's best to lock the Southern coasts of the country and the Canary Islands...


----------



## isaidso

So, without immigration, the Spanish population would be declining?


----------



## Skyline_FFM

Yes. The fertility rates are low and countries with less immigrants like Portugal, Hungary, Italy and Greece already have declining populations. Germany's population will start declining as soon as there a less immigrants.
http://www.overpopulation.org/older.html


----------



## [email protected]

Of course Dubai with an annual growth of 300.000+ would be the obvious choice, but we have to wait and see how things develop there in the next 5-10 years.

I don't see any city in Europe reaching a megacity status except for those that are already labeled a megacity (London, Paris, Moscow, Istanbul).

Sydney and Melbourne might have a good chance with the possibility to double their population from their current 4.5 and 3.8 million within the next 30 years, although water scarcity might slow their growth.

Phoenix, the fastest growing city in the US also faces the same problem. In North America I especially expect the two major Texan metro areas (Dallas-Ft.Worth and Houston) to grow significantly, however it remains to be seen if they can get close to a megacity in the future.


----------



## Skyline_FFM

For further information, an excel file showing all of the world's biggest cities in 2015. This is a huge file:
www.un.org/esa/population/publications/WUP2005/2005AgglomerationsWallChart_web.xls


----------



## :jax:

Spain can expect some more southern immigrants seeking work, and some more retired Northern European pensioners seeking the sun, but I don't expect them to all flock to Madrid, the pensioners in particular are more likely to stay at the coasts. 

I stand by my previous post, so unless the immigration rate to Australia gets even higher, or Sydney/Melbourne can attract a great lot of people from other Australian cities, I doubt they will be in the megacity category.

Even China will slow down, the new megacities will likely be within the next 20 years or so and then no more. India and South/South East Asia will continue for longer, though most new megacities will be in Africa.



:jax: said:


> The city growth is largely over in the developed world and will be over in a generation or two in the developing world.
> 
> Cities have been fed by two long-term trends, rapid population growth and people leaving the countryside. The world's population growth is flattening out. Population is already flat in most of the developed world, the USA is the notable exception, and is flattening very fast in good parts of the developing world, those countries with good prospects.
> 
> In the developed world most have already left the countryside.


----------



## Justme

Skyline_FFM said:


> No, Madrid will not even pass 8 million. Pop growth in Spain is stagnant in the major cities and shrinking nationwide,... :sly:


Are you thinking of City Proper populations or Metropolitan Area populations. As it's quite common for City Proper populations to be stagnant or even decrease whilst the metro area grows as people move to the suburbs for more spacious homes or cheaper property.


----------



## Justme

[email protected] said:


> I don't see any city in Europe reaching a megacity status except for those that are already labeled a megacity (London, Paris, Moscow, Istanbul).


Europe has been spared the mass scale flights from the countryside to the major city's which almost all other parts of the world have experienced, from the wealthy nations like Australia and the US, to poorer Asian and African countries. Although this migration to the major cities have been more evident in some parts of Eastern Europe, it may only be a matter of time as more and more non-urban people move to either the major cities or their surrounding metropolitan area's to either find work or avoid higher transportation costs. It is usually these internal migrations that build cities up extremely quickly. When this happens, National population levels can drop and still the cities grow. In fact, as National population does drop, it is more likely that people will move to the major centers as the smaller towns and villages will loose employment opportunities.



[email protected] said:


> Sydney and Melbourne might have a good chance with the possibility to double their population from their current 4.5 and 3.8 million within the next 30 years, although water scarcity might slow their growth.


Absolutely no chance. When I was a child living in Sydney it had a population of 3.5million. That was say 25 years ago. Today it has only grown to 4.3million. There is no way in the world with Australia's tight immigration laws that it could attract so many people in such a short time. Coupled with the fact that Australia's desertion of the countryside to the major cities happened a long time ago (even when I was a child it was over 80%) there is virtually no internal migration possible. Thirdly, the Australian government is encouraging immigrants to move to the countryside or smaller towns, not that major cities in an attempt to repopulate some of these dying communities.


----------



## Skyline_FFM

Justme said:


> Are you thinking of City Proper populations or Metropolitan Area populations. As it's quite common for City Proper populations to be stagnant or even decrease whilst the metro area grows as people move to the suburbs for more spacious homes or cheaper property.


Errrm, if people move from Madrid core city to the suburbs, this doesn't make the overall pop size increase, that only re-distributes it. As as shown in the Excel table of the UN you can see that Madrid will hardly pass 6 mln. This is still some considerable growth, but far from megacity status!


----------



## Isek

Skyline_FFM said:


> For further information, an excel file showing all of the world's biggest cities in 2015. This is a huge file:
> www.un.org/esa/population/publications/WUP2005/2005AgglomerationsWallChart_web.xls


That chart is quit odd - comparing US MSAs or Spain / Turkish ect. metros to German "core cities"... :bash:

Is really Germany the only country in the world that is not giving any compareable statistics of urban population to the UN??


----------



## Justme

Skyline_FFM said:


> Errrm, if people move from Madrid core city to the suburbs, this doesn't make the overall pop size increase, that only re-distributes it. As as shown in the Excel table of the UN you can see that Madrid will hardly pass 6 mln. This is still some considerable growth, but far from megacity status!


If people move from the Madrid's core (or city proper) to the surrounding suburbs or metro area, the population of the city proper may drop, the populations of the surrounding municipalities may increase, but the total population of the metropolitan area would remain constant.

I don't get your point?


----------



## Skyline_FFM

No, the UN does NOT consider the urban areas around the German cities! They never did...


----------



## Justme

Skyline_FFM said:


> No, the UN does NOT consider the urban areas around the German cities! They never did...


Well if that's the case then no, Sydney and Melbourne will never reach megacity status. Afterall, Sydney city proper has around 151,000 people and Melbourne is around 71,000.

It is their metropolitan area's that Sydney and Melbourne reach their 4.3m and 3.8m figures. Don't compare apple's with oranges mate.


----------



## Chrissib

Skyline_FFM said:


> No, the UN does NOT consider the urban areas around the German cities! They never did...


This is also the case with south Korea.


----------



## isaidso

Skyline_FFM said:


> For further information, an excel file showing all of the world's biggest cities in 2015. This is a huge file:
> www.un.org/esa/population/publications/WUP2005/2005AgglomerationsWallChart_web.xls


That was a great file. It's amazing to see even cities people here consider to be rapidly growing like Toronto, Dallas, and Miami are only able to maintain their world population ranking. If cities like these hope to become major dominant cities in the future, they will have to grow even faster than they are now.

A more likely scenario is that cities like Toronto, Dallas, and Miami will become more dominant cities relative to the incumbents on the continents they occupy. These 3, along with Mexico City will continue to gain ground on North America's current dominant 3: New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago.



:jax: said:


> The city growth is largely over in the developed world and will be over in a generation or two in the developing world.


This pretty much sums it up. The only cities in the developed world that will achieve 'mega city' status are probably the ones already there. There may be a few exceptions like Chicago, Toronto, Miami, Dallas, and Houston, but beyond that, it is very unlikely. If these cities don't achieve it in the next 25 years, they probably never will. Growth rates throughout the developed world will begin to flat line or become negative, even in the ones that are currently still growing like Australia, the USA, and Canada.


----------



## Skyline_FFM

Justme said:


> Well if that's the case then no, Sydney and Melbourne will never reach megacity status. Afterall, Sydney city proper has around 151,000 people and Melbourne is around 71,000.
> 
> It is their metropolitan area's that Sydney and Melbourne reach their 4.3m and 3.8m figures. Don't compare apple's with oranges mate.


Don't tell ME not to compare apples and oranges, since the list is by the UN! But I think the only mistake in this table is that some countries are shown as city proper and others just with the core city. Since when is that MY fault???? I did not make that list. :nuts:
But it shows at least an overall tendency...


----------



## Justme

Skyline_FFM said:


> Don't tell ME not to compare apples and oranges, since the list is by the UN! But I think the only mistake in this table is that some countries are shown as city proper and others just with the core city.
> 
> 
> 
> Skyline_FFM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Skyline. Sorry, that list is full of so many inaccuracies. Let's take a basic look at how it listed Sydney. 4.3million. That 4.3million is the metropolitan area of Sydney known as the Sydney Statistical division or SSD. Now, that area covers some 12,100km²
> http://crc.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/1609/nswmap1.pdf
> 
> This is far far larger than the urban area, and of cause enormously larger than the city proper. Most of that area is wild Bushland, National Parks and forests of a density and size that makes the Taunus or Frankfurter Stadtwald look like an open field. There is nothing wrong with this when using it in terms of a metropolitan area, but then it compares this to what's inside the M25 in London (1700km²) and ignoring the millions of people spread out on the other side or the city proper of Hamburg - only 755km² or Munich at 310km²
> 
> So, what it is trying to say is this. A metropolitan area like the SSD which includes vast area's of mountains and national parks and covers 12,100km² is in the same category of a political council area of 310km² despite the urban area exceeding it.
> 
> 
> 
> Skyline_FFM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since when is that MY fault???? I did not make that list. :nuts:
> But it shows at least an overall tendency...
> 
> 
> 
> I do apologize for bringing this on to you. However, you did bring up this list and defended it. Now, I am sure after reading what I wrote above that you can see the ridiculousness of this list. I can only imagine that the UN created this by asking representatives from each country what their Urban Agglomerations were (as they call it) but never gave definitions. So some countries returned back data from their metro area's, others their urban area's and one like Germany just their council area's.
> 
> That list has no realistic value whatsoever. It is amazing it was even published. Now, I'm not one to knock professionals such as I'm sure most people at the UN are, but this is a serious ****-up by them and can be seen clearly by my post.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Skyline_FFM

Good they didn't ask the authorities of Düsseldorf, who constantly claim to have a metro region of almost 3.5 million! :lol: The same goes to Cologne. I think none of them is a metro area by itself!


----------



## Skyline_FFM

By the way, some of the metro regions in Germany: http://www.deutsche-metropolregionen.org/bibliothek/karten.html


----------



## Chrissib

Skyline_FFM said:


> By the way, some of the metro regions in Germany: http://www.deutsche-metropolregionen.org/bibliothek/karten.html


This may compare to the US Combinded statistical area but for the comparison of Metro areas, these Europäische Metropolregionen are too large in area.


----------



## Justme

Skyline_FFM said:


> By the way, some of the metro regions in Germany: http://www.deutsche-metropolregionen.org/bibliothek/karten.html


Thanks for the link.


----------



## BrickellResidence

im sorry did anybody say that the population of mexico city is 25 million but not anymore mexico city brand new metropolitan area population is 28 million according to wikipedia.


----------



## Skyline_FFM

Maybe. But since it is not 1st world, it doesn't matter in this place. Pop size isn't everything! An the official figures show 23 million, sorry!


----------



## Azia

*@skyline ffm*



Skyline_FFM said:


> That is exactly what I said. There is no core city in the Rhein-Ruhr. Mostly they put Essen which I don't see as more important than Dortmund or Duisburg...


but i think also thats rhine ruhr is actuelly an megacity witch 12 million inhabitans , interesting will be the future of madrid ?can it be pass 10 million mark by 2050 or before yes i think so


----------



## Skyline_FFM

No, it won't! It cannot pass 10 million, not even 7 million - ok, perhaps 7 million....


----------



## Chrissib

The only city, where it's sure that it will become a megacity, is Chicago. It's only 300,000 away, and grows with about 70,000/year. The other cases are much more uncertain: 

Washington will grow to a megacity in 20 years if the growth rate will be maintained for that time.

The American cities Dallas, Atlanta, Houston and Phoenix, whose will only grow to 10 million if the population boom in the south will continue.

Milan, Madrid, Toronto and Hong Kong have very low birthrates and heavily depend on international migration.

Nagoya and Taipeh do also have low birthrates, but the megacity status is even more uncertain as these two Cities only grow because of internal migration.

San Francisco, Philadelphia, Boston and the Randstad are growing too slowly to achieve megacity status.


----------



## BrickellResidence

Chrissib said:


> The only city, where it's sure that it will become a megacity, is Chicago. It's only 300,000 away, and grows with about 70,000/year. The other cases are much more uncertain:
> 
> Washington will grow to a megacity in 20 years if the growth rate will be maintained for that time.
> 
> The American cities Dallas, Atlanta, Houston and Phoenix, whose will only grow to 10 million if the population boom in the south will continue.
> 
> Milan, Madrid, Toronto and Hong Kong have very low birthrates and heavily depend on international migration.
> 
> Nagoya and Taipeh do also have low birthrates, but the megacity status is even more uncertain as these two Cities only grow because of internal migration.
> 
> San Francisco, Philadelphia, Boston and the Randstad are growing too slowly to achieve megacity status.



god why does people forget about miami it has 5 million metro


----------



## vancouverite/to'er

If you counted Toronto like a U.S CMA it would be approx 8 million (Golden horseshoe excluding metro Hamilton), only 1 million less than Chicago.


----------



## BrickellResidence

mexico city will be a beach city in 2070 it will be ixtapa,acapulco,veracruz,vallarta wow.


----------



## karim aboussir

morocco will never have a mega city but to qualify has a mega city population must be 10 millions or more right ? 
casablanca mrocco's biggest city is growing in size very fast but the population is slowly growing greater casablanca region is 4 million there is no way it will ever reach 10 million I think 6 or 7 million at most by 2050


----------



## Chrissib

brickellresidence said:


> mexico city will be a beach city in 2070 it will be ixtapa,acapulco,veracruz,vallarta wow.


Wow New york will be a west coast city it will include Denver,. Chicago, LA^^


----------



## karim aboussir

in 2070 I will be so old ! I am gonna be in my 90's


----------



## Manila-X

brickellresidence said:


> mexico city will be a beach city in 2070 it will be ixtapa,acapulco,veracruz,vallarta wow.


I was thinking of Leonardo De Caprio's Romeo and Juliet aka. *Verona Beach*


----------



## 6-6-6

:yes:


WANCH said:


> I was thinking of Leonardo De Caprio's Romeo and Juliet aka. *Verona Beach*


----------



## Mojojojo.

Mike Buchanan, the co-head of Goldman Sachs, said that Pakistan was among N-11 emerging economies after the Brics. 

Elaborating his point of view on the economic potential of the emerging economies, he said that the largest economies in 2050 would also include Pakistan. Economies with the higher GDP would include China, USA, India, Japan, Brazil, Mexico, Russia, Germany, United Kingdom, France, Indonesia, Nigeria, Korea, Italy, Canada, Vietnam, Turkey, Philippines, Egypt, Pakistan, Iran and Bangladesh.

According to economic fundamentals of Pakistan its GDP to grow from $120 billion in the 2005 to $2.287 trillion by 2050. Pakistan’s per capita income to grow from $737 in 2005 to $7753 in 2050. 

Pakistan’s population will reach 304.7 million by the year 2050, said a report of World Population Foundation WPF-Pakistan in connection with World Population Day here on Friday.

^^
hopefully if thats the case then apart frm karach n lahore Islamabad and gawadar will also be Mega cities as they will be major hub between central asian states, india and china as well as middle east .......

but if u see current situation ......hno:


----------



## Chrissib

arslanalf said:


> Mike Buchanan, the co-head of Goldman Sachs, said that Pakistan was among N-11 emerging economies after the Brics.
> 
> Elaborating his point of view on the economic potential of the emerging economies, he said that the largest economies in 2050 would also include Pakistan. Economies with the higher GDP would include China, USA, India, Japan, Brazil, Mexico, Russia, Germany, United Kingdom, France, Indonesia, Nigeria, Korea, Italy, Canada, Vietnam, Turkey, Philippines, Egypt, Pakistan, Iran and Bangladesh.
> 
> According to economic fundamentals of Pakistan its GDP to grow from $120 billion in the 2005 to $2.287 trillion by 2050. Pakistan’s per capita income to grow from $737 in 2005 to $7753 in 2050.
> 
> Pakistan’s population will reach 304.7 million by the year 2050, said a report of World Population Foundation WPF-Pakistan in connection with World Population Day here on Friday.
> 
> ^^
> hopefully if thats the case then apart frm karach n lahore Islamabad and gawadar will also be Mega cities as they will be major hub between central asian states, india and china as well as middle east .......
> 
> but if u see current situation ......hno:


The interesting question is, how much the growth will be centralized to Karachi. When the Government fails to bring the Growth to remote areas, Karachi will soon become a real primate city.


----------



## Sentient Seas

2050? New York City will be Mega New York City by then. No questions asked. They will have to stop building outwards and begin building upwards on all construction. NYC followed closely by Hong Kong or Tokyo...


----------



## the spliff fairy

Shanghai and Chongqing are growing by over 1 million a year, and increasing. At the most conservative estimates theyre looking at 40 million by 2020, worst case scenario upwards of 60 million a piece for each city. Shanghai is currently the worlds most highrise city (over 4000 buildings over 400ft, to rise to 5000 within the next two years), with Chongqing seeing in a bigger boom. Both cities are building vast metros and infrastructure to cope. The Shanghai CSA currently has 140 million people in the Yangtze River Delta.


----------



## Chrissib

Sentient Seas said:


> 2050? New York City will be Mega New York City by then. No questions asked. They will have to stop building outwards and begin building upwards on all construction. NYC followed closely by Hong Kong or Tokyo...


Manhattan is already very dense, it has Parisian standard^^. But there is much potential in Brooklyn and even more in Staten Island an Queens. If you develop all New York Manhattan style, you could squeeze 22 million people inside the city limits! So there's potential for 14 million additional New Yorkers. And if you consider that Manhattan had a density of 39,000/km² in 1910, there is additional room for another 9 million people, pushing the population to 31 million.


----------



## karim aboussir

how can you live in a city that is like 30 million plus !!!! that is insane


----------



## Justme

karim aboussir said:


> how can you live in a city that is like 30 million plus !!!! that is insane


I have to say that when I visited Tokyo it didn't feel overcrowded. Maybe because they seem to have so many different downtowns and the excellent transport network. I could still walk around most of the city without feeling crushed with only a few exceptions. I could also find plenty of solitude in some parks or parts of town. Although I must admit I didn't attempt the early morning commuter rush, I did travel through the evening peak which to be honest is always less busy as it's more spread out.


----------



## karim aboussir

tokyo yep I hear it is very well organized but most mega cities in the world are chaos a friend of mine lives in lagos he says it is hell there


----------



## Anderson Geimz

the spliff fairy said:


> The Shanghai CSA currently has 140 million people in the Yangtze River Delta.


CSA doesn't mean what you think it means...
What you are referring to is "megalopolis", areas like:
The Blue Banana
Honshu
Pearl River Delta
Bosh-Wash
Java
and indeed Yangtze River Delta


----------



## Justme

karim aboussir said:


> tokyo yep I hear it is very well organized but most mega cities in the world are chaos a friend of mine lives in lagos he says it is hell there


Well, there is usually a vast difference between a city in a developed nation and one in an undeveloped. I would also say that a small city in an undeveloped nation maybe chaotic compared to a big city in a developed nation.


----------



## Skyline_FFM

the spliff fairy said:


> Shanghai and Chongqing are growing by over 1 million a year, and increasing. At the most conservative estimates theyre looking at 40 million by 2020, worst case scenario upwards of 60 million a piece for each city. Shanghai is currently the worlds most highrise city (over 4000 buildings over 400ft, to rise to 5000 within the next two years), with Chongqing seeing in a bigger boom. Both cities are building vast metros and infrastructure to cope. The Shanghai CSA currently has 140 million people in the Yangtze River Delta.


Helloooohoooo! Developed, First World! That entire region won't be developed Fisrt World until then!


----------



## :jax:

And in any case a case of the interpolation fallacy. That a city increases with one million a year now does not imply that that city will increase with 40 million in 40 years.


----------



## monkeyronin

the spliff fairy said:


> Shanghai is currently the worlds most highrise city (over 4000 buildings over 400ft, to rise to 5000 within the next two years), with Chongqing seeing in a bigger boom.


Even based on the incomplete statistics of Emporis - Hong Kong, New York, Sao Paulo, and Singapore have over 4,000 high-rises each. Where you even get this figure, or any of the others in your post I have no idea. Any data that can be cited regarding these?




> The Shanghai CSA currently has 140 million people in the Yangtze River Delta.


Shanghai doesn't HAVE a CSA. They exist only in the USA and are therefore calculated only for US cities. If you could obtain data to construct an equivalent of a CSA for Shanghai, that would be great, but the Yangtze Delta is NOT the equivalent. The Delta consists of nearby but individual metropolises, while a CSA is based around shares of commuters. And presumably, few people living in metropolitan Shanghai don't commute to metro Nanjing, just as doing so between NY and Philadelphia is uncommon (which instead, constitute a "Megalopolis", as was mentioned earlier). Also, I'm not sure where you get this 140,000,000 figure. Wikipedia, while certainly not infallible still lists it as 80,000,000, and a disparity of 60 million seems a bit off.




Skyline_FFM said:


> Helloooohoooo! Developed, First World! That entire region won't be developed Fisrt World until then!


China might not be, but it is almost guaranteed that the Yangtze Delta region will be.


----------



## hkskyline

Justme said:


> I have to say that when I visited Tokyo it didn't feel overcrowded. Maybe because they seem to have so many different downtowns and the excellent transport network. I could still walk around most of the city without feeling crushed with only a few exceptions. I could also find plenty of solitude in some parks or parts of town. Although I must admit I didn't attempt the early morning commuter rush, I did travel through the evening peak which to be honest is always less busy as it's more spread out.


That's true .. Tokyo isn't a big highrise city anyway. There are still a lot of quaint little side streets where life doesn't seem to intense.


----------



## Xusein

City_of_Fury said:


> I am starting to think that a lot of people of this forum discrimine the developing countries.
> Why they are not include?
> always the threads are about American and also European cities.
> Where are the other continents.
> Mexico City, Sao Paulo and Buenos Aires are really huge cities and for example Mexico is one of the biggest cities over the world.
> And what about Manila? the Indian cities?, Karachi? or maybe african cities like Lagos?.
> The world do not finish in the States...


Probably because the point of this thread is about future megacities in the *developed *world. mg:


----------



## DarkLite

10ROT said:


> Probably because the point of this thread is about future megacities in the *developed *world. mg:


 but dude this thread is seriously boring. when it all boils down to developing a few acres a year and thinking it will all merge then you know its getting too boring. we all know these cities have slow growth rates. if you put in more or less developed cities then maybe it could get interesting


----------



## Xusein

IF you want to do that, you're free to create a new thread.

We all know that the cities in the developed world are slow growing in comparison, but that makes it much more interesting to discuss about.


----------



## Skyline_FFM

Paneco said:


> I would consider Buenos Aires a developed city, as well as Santiago, Chile. Both of those countries possess HDIs rapidly nearing the magical 0.900 mark.


Since when is HDI the indicator for a developed or not city? Developed means no squatter settlements, wooden shacks and 100% of population have access to good quality (!!!) sanitation, sewage, information, infrastructure etc...
And people forget one thing: The population may grow slowlier than in developing countries, but the number of households grows strongly due to individualization! Cities are restructured and rebuilt/replanned to meet the needs of the new generations. So why is it boring?
You should see how even villages and suburbs still seal acres and acres of ground for new living and working space. Where you once found green areas, today you find entire new quarters, enormous areas are being knocked down to build new quarters. And I am not even talking about London or New York. Just look at less dynamic cities like Frankfurt (Europaviertel and Skyline Plaza) or Hamburg (Hafencity)...
Never before there were so many 200+es launched for Paris as you find today, London's tallest towers are going to be built just in the future. Madrid had it's 200ers built just recently. So why is that boring?


----------



## Intoxication

Skyline_FFM said:


> Since when is HDI the indicator for a developed or not city? Developed means no squatter settlements, wooden shacks and 100% of population have access to good quality (!!!) sanitation, sewage, information, infrastructure etc...


Actually HDI is by far the BEST measure of how developed a city or a country is! And it includes all of the things that you have just mentioned and much much more!!!



Skyline_FFM said:


> Where you once found green areas, today you find entire new quarters, enormous areas are being knocked down to build new quarters.


Actually, I, as many other people in the developed world, are against this. Green areas are running out and cities are turning more and more into concrete jungles, which is just not right. Its doesn't make for a healthy city or living place.


----------



## City_of_Fury

Intoxication said:


> *Actually HDI is by far the BEST measure of how developed a city or a country is! And it includes all of the things that you have just mentioned and much much more!!!*
> 
> 
> Actually, I, as many other people in the developed world, are against this. Green areas are running out and cities are turning more and more into concrete jungles, which is just not right. Its doesn't make for a healthy city or living place.


I agree!
HDI is the best index to rank the development of a country/city. Especially for a City.
But I really think that the "developing" cities has to much to show.


----------



## HRLR

The "developing world" is heterogeneous. Sao Paulo, Mexico City and Buenos Aires are much more prosperous than Mumbai and Lagos.


----------



## 6-6-6

HRLR said:


> The "developing world" is heterogeneous. Sao Paulo, Mexico City and Buenos Aires are much more prosperous than Mumbai and Lagos.


exactly! definitively, Those 3 cities you named are almost reaching the 1st world catogory, everytime i go to cities like montreal, philadelphia, seattle i see no diference at all, my city has all services those cities have but cheaper.

i mean, Baires, MXC and SP, have arenas, stadiums, subway, conmmuter train, big airports, big bussiness distric areas, lots of deparments and residential zones, re-bulding the slums, important universities, big concerts, omportant HQ'S and much more while lagos, jakarta, mumbai, cairo, manila, cape town etc etc are not being developed as fast as mxc, baires and sp.

and of course, im speaking subjectivity.


----------



## brisavoine

Azia said:


> it is an very interesting thread , so when i look at saskia sassens arguments so the megacities are all only developt (world cities :London,Tokyo ,Nyc etc..) but some authors list even Sao Paulo, Mumbai and Manila as developt cities ??? i am confused ... ???





Intoxication said:


> The GDP of the Yangtze River Delta cities is equal to 50% of India's Economy:
> 
> The GDP, or gross domestic product, of the Shanghai region alone is $450bn (£225bn), equivalent to half the size of the entire economy of India.


As often on SSC, people are comparing apples and pears.

For a bit of perspective, here is PWC's ranking of world metropolises (urban areas) by the size of their metropolitan economies in 2005. This is the most standardized worlwide ranking that exists. Note that metropolitan GDPs in the table are at PPP values, which tends to favor developping countries' metropolises such as Mexico City and Sao Paulo.

In 2005 Shanghai did not even make it to the top 30, but it should probably have entered the top 30 by now. In 2007 the GDP of the Shanghai Municipality (6,340 km²; 18.5 million people) was 160.5 billion US dollars at market exchange rates (official figure from the Shanghai statistical office). In comparison, the GDP of Hong Kong (1,104 km²; 6.95 million people) was 206.7 billion US dollars in 2007 at market exchange rates. So still some way to go for Shanghai.


----------



## backupcoolmen

where the hell is new york? new york will be a mega city


----------



## Intoxication

brisavoine said:


> As often on SSC, people are comparing apples and pears.


No! Its just you with your stupid assumptions, thinking that everyone else is wrong and you're right.

Did you even bother to read my post?! I wasn't just talking about the GDP of Shanghai, I was sharing information on the total size of the GDP of the Yangtze River Delta, which does equal 50% of India's GDP. Just look at the BBC source that I provided.



brisavoine said:


> For a bit of perspective, here is PWC's ranking of world metropolises (urban areas) by the size of their metropolitan economies in 2005. This is the most standardized worlwide ranking that exists. Note that metropolitan GDPs in the table are at PPP values, which tends to favor developping countries' metropolises such as Mexico City and Sao Paulo.
> 
> In 2005 Shanghai did not even make it to the top 30, but it should probably have entered the top 30 by now. In 2007 the GDP of the Shanghai Municipality (6,340 km²; 18.5 million people) was 160.5 billion US dollars at market exchange rates (official figure from the Shanghai statistical office). In comparison, the GDP of Hong Kong (1,104 km²; 6.95 million people) was 206.7 billion US dollars in 2007 at market exchange rates. So still some way to go for Shanghai.
> 
> http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/2229/pwczq5.png


Just go through this thread and then you'll see how inaccurate the date by PwC is! Especially in relation to the GDP's of Asian cities. Just read the comments in the thread. Lastly, PPP does not in any way "favour" developing countries, thats just an assumption that some people have come too, all it does is show the actual, more accurate size of the GDP's.


----------



## Kwame

6-6-6 said:


> *cape town are not being developed as fast as mxc, baires and sp.*


Cape Town is on the same level (if not surpassed), than Mexico City, Buenos Aires, and Sao Paulo in terms of being "developed".


----------



## Mr.Burn

Crash2010 said:


> Cape Town is on the same level (if not surpassed), than Mexico City, Buenos Aires, and Sao Paulo in terms of being "developed".


ummmm you sure about that:|


----------



## Kwame

Mr.Burn said:


> ummmm you sure about that:|


Last time I checked, Cape Town doesn't have slums sprawling outside of it's city center, nor is it not a developed market.


----------



## monkeyronin

Crash2010 said:


> Last time I checked, Cape Town doesn't have slums sprawling outside of it's city center, nor is it not a developed market.


So a city's development status is determined by your anecdotal experiences with it's slums? 

Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina are more developed than South Africa (both by GDP per capita and HDI), so it would be logical to therefore assume that these cities would be more developed than Cape Town, considering the lack of data for individual cities?




backupcoolmen said:


> where the hell is new york? new york will be a mega city


Uhh, it has been for the past 80 years. :lol:


----------



## Kwame

monkeyronin said:


> So a city's development status is determined by your anecdotal experiences with it's slums?


No not at all, I was responding to a post that said this:


6-6-6 said:


> i mean, Baires, MXC and SP, have arenas, stadiums, subway, conmmuter train, big airports, big bussiness distric areas, lots of deparments and residential zones, re-bulding the slums and much more while lagos, jakarta, mumbai, cairo, manila, *cape town* are not being developed as fast as mxc, baires and sp.


Cape Town has all those things, plus more. Even though Buenos Aires, Mexico City, and Sao Paulo have a larger population than Cape Town, I'm willing to bet they have more slums in their respective Metropolitan areas, than Cape Town.



monkeyronin said:


> Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina are more developed than South Africa (both by GDP per capita and HDI), so it would be logical to therefore assume that these cities would be more developed than Cape Town, considering the lack of data for individual cities?


You assume? We're talking about cities here, not Countries. Instead of speaking out of ignorance, I suggest you visit the South African forum to see what Cape Town and all the other Large cities in South Africa are like. All of South Africa isn't a shantytown like most of the people in here may like to think.


----------



## BrickellResidence

last time i went to mexico city was last whole summer and before that was july 2006.
my dad right now lives in a new loft in napoles aerea when i came this summer i thought this was not mexico city because there was like hundred of new apartment with glass balconies and really modern with new security. my old apartment was gone right now becasue the are constructing a new condo. that makes me see how fast mx city is modernizing it could be developed in 2010 even theres no more slum houses sprwling but nice suburban houses. the slums area has a large amount of middle income condos or apartments risin in the area .slums could be gone before 2030.


----------



## monkeyronin

Crash2010 said:


> No not at all, I was responding to a post that said this:
> 
> Cape Town has all those things, plus more. Even though Buenos Aires, Mexico City, and Sao Paulo have a larger population than Cape Town, I'm willing to bet they have more slums in their respective Metropolitan areas, than Cape Town.
> 
> 
> You assume? We're talking about cities here, not Countries. Instead of speaking out of ignorance, I suggest you visit the South African forum to see what Cape Town and all the other Large cities in South Africa are like. All of South Africa isn't a shantytown like most of the people in here may like to think.


Again, you're using anecdotal evidence, which is disproved by actual empirical data. 

Mexico
GDP (PPP) per capita: $12,775
GDP (nominal) per capita: $8,479
HDI: 0.829
Gini: 46.1

Brazil
GDP (PPP) per capita: $11,873
GDP (nominal) per capita: $6,842
HDI: 0.800
Gini: 50.5

Argentina
GDP (PPP) per capita: $13,307
GDP (nominal) per capita: $6,548
HDI: 0.869
Gini: 49

South Africa
GDP (PPP) per capita: $10,600
GDP (nominal) per capita: $5,274
HDI: 0.674
Gini: 57.8


Since there is no evidence of any of these cities being relatively higher than others in regards to their countries in this comparison, Cape Town being slightly _less_ developed (not more, as you claim) than those other three cities is a logical conclusion.


----------



## City_of_Fury

monkeyronin said:


> Again, you're using anecdotal evidence, which is disproved by actual empirical data.
> 
> Mexico
> GDP (PPP) per capita: $12,775
> GDP (nominal) per capita: $8,479
> HDI: 0.829
> Gini: 46.1
> 
> Brazil
> GDP (PPP) per capita: $11,873
> GDP (nominal) per capita: $6,842
> HDI: 0.800
> Gini: 50.5
> 
> Argentina
> GDP (PPP) per capita: $13,307
> GDP (nominal) per capita: $6,548
> HDI: 0.869
> Gini: 49
> 
> South Africa
> GDP (PPP) per capita: $10,600
> GDP (nominal) per capita: $5,274
> HDI: 0.674
> Gini: 57.8
> 
> 
> Since there is no evidence of any of these cities being relatively higher than others in regards to their countries in this comparison, Cape Town being slightly _less_ developed (not more, as you claim) than those other three cities is a logical conclusion.


Cape Town is not developed as Buenos Aires or Sao Paulo.
For example Buenos Aires is one of the first cities (in terms of Quality of Life) of Latin America.
And the countries of Latin America that are better in terms of Quality of Life, HDI are Argentina, Uruguay and Chile.
Buenos Aires is the center of the power and is (with the Patagonia and other provinces like Cordoba and Santa Fe) the most develop and richest place of Argentina. 
And in Latin America the situation is that the biggest economies are Brasil and Mexico (and then Argentina but it is not big as the other two) but the places with the best HDI and "development" is the Southern Cone (Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and the southern part of Brasil -the states of: Rio Grande do Sul, Parana and Santa Catarina).

The HDI of Buenos Aires is 0.911 similar to the develope world countries.

Cape Town is also a "develope" city in the under develope world.
And is a nice place and I know that has a lot of stability. But Buenos Aires, if you study the history of the city, has a privilege site as the Center of the fifth economy of the Americas.


----------



## staff

monkeyronin said:


> One thing to note is the relative sparsity of skyscrapers in Shanghai. In SP/NY/HK they are simply packed in, and thus they have the effect of appearing as less towers.


You have to remember that the NYC areas with "packed in highrises" are Manhattan, or even part of Manhattan (and nowhere near the whole city, let alone the whole urban area). Hong Kong has extreme density in its urban area, and packed in highrises pretty much all over the place, but Hong Kong's urban area is quite small by area-- comparable to a European city of around 300.000-500.000. Shanghai, on the other hand, while having fewer areas with the hyper density you'll find in Hong Kong and part of Manhattan, have thousands upon thousands of skyscrapers spread over a huge area, while still maintaining very high density. There's almost no place in the whole city where you can get an unobstructed view of the skyscrapers, unless you are at least 150-200m up.

Sao Paolo (and Seoul, Beijing, and perhaps some other Chinese cities) is definitely a contender though. Judging by photos of SP (I haven't been there, but have spent a lot of time in all of the other cities discussed) it wouldn't surprise me if it currently has more highrises than Shanghai though.


----------



## Kwame

monkeyronin said:


> Well, what do you know, Cape Town is indeed the wealthiest of the four, even if it is in the least developed of the four countries (interesting to note that it's GDP/capita is twice that of Jo-burg). :cheers:
> 
> 
> City | GDP ($b) | Pop. | GDP/capita
> 
> Sao Paulo | 225 | 17,700,000 | $12,711
> Mexico City | 315 | 17,400,000 | $18,103
> Buenos Aires | 245 | 11,200,000 | $21,875
> Cape Town | 75 | 2,700,000 | $27,777
> 
> http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/richest-cities-2005.html
> http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/largest-cities-population-125.html


I appreciate the fact you took the initiative to do research on the city, instead of talking out of ignorance like others here who shall remain nameless.



monkeyronin said:


> It actually isn't, though. As we can see from the cities' GDPs/capita, theirs largely follows the trend of the country they are in. Argentina is wealthier than Mexico which is wealthier than Brazil, just as their respective primary city is, and if we were to include SA's, the trend would continue. But then there are of course, anomaly's like Cape Town.


It actually is. Cape Town is a great example how judging a city by it's national statistics is a poor decision. For example, you can't judge a city like Detroit, or Fresno by looking at America's national statistics. The difference of wealth, and quality of life in both respective cities, are largely different from national statistics. If you disagree, then I guess it's just a coincidence that so many cities throughout the world don't fully correlate with their national statistics.



monkeyronin said:


> And regarding your bias - your opinion was based on personal experience. ALL personal experiences are biased in one way or another.


Actually, the only city we've discussed, that I have been to is Sao Paulo. The only personal experience I've shared with all other cities mentioned were through in-depth photo galleries. Also, I'm constantly conscious about sounding biased and if you felt that I was, it was unintended. :bowtie:


----------



## JohanSA

And there you proved it to us! you will see just how developed CT is in 2010. on becoming a megacity - Cape Town will in the not too distant future form a continious metropole from the helderberg to wellington to saldanha in the north. cape town offers to people with money the same living standerd as a city like melbourne - exept for crime. but with Helen Zille or Godzille as shes these days fondly referred to at the head we will beat all obsticles.


----------



## annman

I have the info, for the cities themselves (municipal boundaries), not the entire country... 
Don't know if it was posted before, do not want to scan all pages of the thread. 

Buenos Aires: 
Total GDP: $252billion
GDP per capita: $21,875

Mexico City:
Total GDP: $315billion
GDP per capita: $18,103

Sao Paulo: 
Total GDP: $225billion
GDP per capita: $15,109

Cape Town:
Total GDP: $75billion
GDP per capita: $21,446

I have lived in America, Europe and Cape Town. Cape Town is developed to the scale of any first world city, so people that keep talking when they've never lived in any other foreign city (or been to S.Africa), please hide your ignorance. Cape Town has developing elements like Latin America, such as some poverty, unemployment, planning issues. But, Cape Town is by no means lesser than any globally competitive city or any Latin capital for that matter (we're just small: 3,2million people or so). 

*Cape Town is unlike ANY African city.* Those who do not know, immerse yourselves in the Cape Town threads, GoogleEarth or just a book!


----------



## herb21

^^ Just a personal and unsubstatiated opinion  in terms of South Africa it seems apparant from my point of view that within the not to distant future the cities of johanasburg and tshwane(pretoria) coupled with the different "rand" areas will form an enormous gauteng mega-city. This Idea is supported by the continueous intergration of the city through projects such as the gautrain


----------



## JohanSA

Isnt gauteng a quarter of South Africas GDP and Pretoria and Johannesburg almost already connected and those mega projects around midrand filling up the last gaps?
BTW the only thing that makes Cape Town any less first world than a city like NY or Munich is public transport and the last spots of informal settlements . and guess what bough of them have a deadline and ongoing construction. transport 2013 to be ultra first world and housing 2015.


----------



## Skyline_FFM

6-6-6 said:


> exactly! definitively, Those 3 cities you named are almost reaching the 1st world catogory, everytime i go to cities like montreal, philadelphia, seattle i see no diference at all, my city has all services those cities have but cheaper.
> 
> i mean, Baires, MXC and SP, have arenas, stadiums, subway, conmmuter train, big airports, big bussiness distric areas, lots of deparments and residential zones, re-bulding the slums, important universities, big concerts, omportant HQ'S and much more while lagos, jakarta, mumbai, cairo, manila, cape town etc etc are not being developed as fast as mxc, baires and sp.
> 
> and of course, im speaking subjectivity.


I don't think that cities with millions of people in slums and tens of thousands in the streets are "almost 1st world"... :lol:
These ones are not much better than Mumbai actually! The p/c income may be higher but also more unequal, making a bunch of the population extremely poor!


----------



## Skyline_FFM

monkeyronin said:


> Again, you're using anecdotal evidence, which is disproved by actual empirical data.
> 
> Mexico
> GDP (PPP) per capita: $12,775
> GDP (nominal) per capita: $8,479
> HDI: 0.829
> Gini: 46.1
> 
> Brazil
> GDP (PPP) per capita: $11,873
> GDP (nominal) per capita: $6,842
> HDI: 0.800
> Gini: 50.5
> 
> Argentina
> GDP (PPP) per capita: $13,307
> GDP (nominal) per capita: $6,548
> HDI: 0.869
> Gini: 49
> 
> South Africa
> GDP (PPP) per capita: $10,600
> GDP (nominal) per capita: $5,274
> HDI: 0.674
> Gini: 57.8
> 
> 
> Since there is no evidence of any of these cities being relatively higher than others in regards to their countries in this comparison, Cape Town being slightly _less_ developed (not more, as you claim) than those other three cities is a logical conclusion.


What is the income disparities???


----------



## monkeyronin

Crash2010 said:


> It actually is. Cape Town is a great example how judging a city by it's national statistics is a poor decision. For example, you can't judge a city like Detroit, or Fresno by looking at America's national statistics. The difference of wealth, and quality of life in both respective cities, are largely different from national statistics. If you disagree, then I guess it's just a coincidence that so many cities throughout the world don't fully correlate with their national statistics.


There is a definite pattern however, more so with the first city of a country though. The US is richer than Canada which is rich than Spain which is richer than Thailand which is richer than India. Its no coincidence that New York is wealthier than Toronto which is wealthier than Madrid, which is more than Bangkok and then Mumbai. Exceptions are more likely to be in smaller cities.




Skyline_FFM said:


> What is the income disparities???


Income disparity is measured by the Gini coefficient - the higher it is the worse the disparity.


----------



## Skyline_FFM

monkeyronin said:


> There is a definite pattern however, more so with the first city of a country though. The US is richer than Canada which is rich than Spain which is richer than Thailand which is richer than India. Its no coincidence that New York is wealthier than Toronto which is wealthier than Madrid, which is more than Bangkok and then Mumbai. Exceptions are more likely to be in smaller cities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Income disparity is measured by the Gini coefficient - the higher it is the worse the disparity.


Yes. And as far as I know, it is exactly the "richer" developing countries and their cities that that have the biggest gaps between rich and poor!


----------



## jAuMeh**

monkeyronin said:


> There is a definite pattern however, more so with the first city of a country though. The US is richer than *Canada which is richer than Spain* which is richer than Thailand which is richer than India. Its no coincidence that New York is wealthier than Toronto which is wealthier than Madrid, which is more than Bangkok and then Mumbai. Exceptions are more likely to be in smaller cities.



^^
Well according to GDP per capita, Canadians are wealthier than Spaniards. But as a whole (GDP, either nominal or at PPP) Spain is ahead of Canada 


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)


----------



## Looking/Up

Spain 'should' have a higher GDP as it has more than 10 million more people than Canada. GDP per capita is a more accurate portrayal of how well off a country is. Sorry Spain.


----------



## annman

Skyline_FFM said:


> What is the income disparities???


Our GINI Coefficient is high, due to our past. We need more than just 14 years of democracy to fix all the issues brought about by Apartheid, but considering we're in the Latin American "GINI" range, don't think it's something that can never get better. 

There's no reason why in 20-30 years or so we could be in the USA/UK GINI mid-range of 0.40-0.45. If we can get there, it'll be no mean feat considering these countries are the "heavily entrenched" democracies.


----------



## City_of_Fury

The HDI is the better way to know the development of a place. And Buenos Aires 's HDI is 0.923 (high) and for example the HDI of Singapore is 0.922. 
The HDI of USA is 0.951
Sao Paulo: 0.841

Can you see the difference between Sao Paulo and Buenos Aires? Buenos Aires has a HDI like Singapore.


But we are speaking abour "megacities" and Buenos Aires has abour 10 million people more than Cape Town.
Buenos Aires also had the First Metro line in southern hemisphere and Iberoamerica.
Buenos Aires count with important services and factories. It is a global city.
Cape Town is a really beautiful city and is a Jewell in Africa but I think the Latin American Cities of Buenos Aires, Santiago, Mexico DF and Sao Paulo-Rio de Janeiro, are really in a better rank


----------



## Kwame

What you "think", and facts are two different things. Buenos Aires, Santiago, Mexico DF and Sao Paulo aren't in any way better than Cape Town.


----------



## BrickellResidence

then why cape town has a little amount of tall building.bbaiires,sao paulo, mexico city and santiago has more finacial markets and bussiness than cape town


----------



## Anderson Geimz

STOP HIJACKING THIS THREAD!


----------



## Kwame

brickellresidence said:


> then why cape town has a little amount of tall building.


Tall buildings aren't what make cities better than each other, if so those the cities you've mentioned above would be better than Amsterdam, Vienna, and other cities who don't have many tall buildings. Cape Town is a sustainable city, within the ranks of Melbourne, New York, Frankfurt, and London. Mexico City, Buenos Aires, and Sao Paulo aren't, so I guess that makes Cape Town better, right?



brickellresidence said:


> bbaiires,sao paulo, mexico city and santiago has more finacial markets and bussiness than cape town.


Cape Town isn't the largest business/financial center in South Africa, so your argument doesn't hold much weight. Out of all those cities mentioned, how can the next largest city of that respective country compare to Cape Town? I doubt they can.


----------



## monkeyronin

Crash2010 said:


> Cape Town is a sustainable city, within the ranks of Melbourne, New York, Frankfurt, and London. Mexico City, Buenos Aires, and Sao Paulo aren't, so I guess that makes Cape Town better, right?


Sorry, Cape Town is closer to Mexico City, Buenos Aires, and Sao Paulo than Melbourne, NYC, London, and Frankfurt. 

As was mentioned earlier, CT has a GDP/capita of $27,000. The three Latin American cities range from $15-22,000. The other three (excluding Frankfurt, didn't have data on it) range from $42-63,000. 




> Cape Town isn't the largest business/financial center in South Africa, so your argument doesn't hold much weight. Out of all those cities mentioned, how can the next largest city of that respective country compare to Cape Town? I doubt they can.


As far as sheer market _size_, Cape Town has a GDP of $75 billion. Second cities Rio with $141b, and Monterrey with $78b are still larger economies (Rosario I am unsure of).




Crash2010 said:


> What you "think", and facts are two different things. Buenos Aires, Santiago, Mexico DF and Sao Paulo aren't in any way better than Cape Town.


Rather subjective and arrogant, no? Of quantifiable "quality-of life indicators" which we haven't yet discussed, infrastructure is more developed in the other three, there is a higher degree of global economic influence, and murder rates are possibly lower (reliable, comparable information is hard to come by, but I've heard rates of 5/100,000 for Buenos Aires and Sao Paulo State, and 15-20 for Mexico City vs. ~40 for the Western Cape province). 

Otherwise, various things being "better" in one city or another are a simple matter of taste.


----------



## Kwame

monkeyronin said:


> Sorry, Cape Town is closer to MC, BA, and SP than Melbourne, NY, London, and Frankfurt.


What I meant, was that Cape Town is in the ranks of Melbourne, New York, London, and Frankfurt in the context of being sustainable cities.



monkeyronin said:


> As was mentioned earlier, CT has a GDP/capita of $27,000. The three Latin American cities range from $15-22,000. The other three (excluding Frankfurt, didn't have data on it) range from $42-63,000.


I know, it's just others here seem to have a hard time accepting the *FACT* that Cape Town is wealthier than those Latin American cities mentioned.



monkeyronin said:


> As far as sheer market _size_, Cape Town has a GDP of $75 billion. Second cities Rio with $141b, and Monterrey with $78b are still larger economies (Rosario I am unsure of).


Monterrey and Cape Town aren't that far from each other with their GDP. But, I meant to type "cities in the same population range (<3,000,000)" as Cape Town. Durban is the "second city" in South Africa in terms of population.


----------



## BrickellResidence

wat about johanesburg


----------



## Kwame

Johannesburg is just as developed as the listed cities you've mentioned in Latin America, but it can't compete when it comes to it's increasingly growing financial sector. Regarding everything else, Johannesburg is just as developed: Highways, Public Transit, Slum Replacement, Stadiums, Tall Buildings, Entertainment, Industry, Tourism, Universities, etc...


----------



## Skyline_FFM

City_of_Fury said:


> The HDI is the better way to know the development of a place. And Buenos Aires 's HDI is 0.923 (high) and for example the HDI of Singapore is 0.922.
> The HDI of USA is 0.951
> Sao Paulo: 0.841
> 
> Can you see the difference between Sao Paulo and Buenos Aires? Buenos Aires has a HDI like Singapore.
> 
> 
> But we are speaking abour "megacities" and Buenos Aires has abour 10 million people more than Cape Town.
> Buenos Aires also had the First Metro line in southern hemisphere and Iberoamerica.
> Buenos Aires count with important services and factories. It is a global city.
> Cape Town is a really beautiful city and is a Jewell in Africa but I think the Latin American Cities of Buenos Aires, Santiago, Mexico DF and Sao Paulo-Rio de Janeiro, are really in a better rank


That only shows that HDI is hilarious! Buenos Aires may be far ahead of all Latin American megacities, but surely is nothing compared to Singapore! And it may be close to a 1st World city, but it isn't yet. It can only become 1st World if the entire country introduces a sustainable social welfare system.
Same goes for South Africa, Mexico etc. And as long as people have to live inslums and myriads in the streets with high crime rates and no social welfare, they cannot be considered in this thread, as they are Third World or Developing World, thus you have to open another thread about them. This is ONLY ABOUT 1st World...


----------



## DarkLite

But Buenos Aires doesnt have massive slums housing millions of people. Sure they have old, dilapidated neighborhoods. Most of the slums are scattered here and there and dont cover mile after mile of the urban landscape.


----------



## Skyline_FFM

Paneco said:


> But Buenos Aires doesnt have massive slums housing millions of people. Sure they have old, dilapidated neighborhoods. Most of the slums are scattered here and there and dont cover mile after mile of the urban landscape.


I know that Buenos Aires isn't Rio or Caracas. But they do not have a sustainable social welfare system. Buenos Aires is a case of a very godd non developed city. I think it can be considered fully developed in about 15 years. Just like Santiago or Montevideo. :cheers:


----------



## HD

monkeyronin said:


> Sorry, Cape Town is closer to Mexico City, Buenos Aires, and Sao Paulo than Melbourne, NYC, London, and Frankfurt.
> 
> As was mentioned earlier, CT has a GDP/capita of $27,000. The three Latin American cities range from $15-22,000. The other three (excluding Frankfurt, didn't have data on it) range from $42-63,000.


the gdp figure for frankfurt is approx. $108,000 (or over 74,000 EUROS) - highest in europe


----------



## Lydon

brickellresidence said:


> then why cape town has a little amount of tall building.bbaiires,sao paulo, mexico city and santiago has more finacial markets and bussiness than cape town



Cape Town has very strict height restrictions in order to prevent the obstruction of views. As a matter of fact, 2 weeks ago it was announced that height restrictions are being reviewed.


----------



## BrickellResidence

then why isnt any construction yet


----------



## Skyline_FFM

HD said:


> the gdp figure for frankfurt is approx. $108,000 (or over 74,000 EUROS) - highest in europe


Actually it passed 90,000 already!


----------



## Skyline_FFM

Lydon said:


> Cape Town has very strict height restrictions in order to prevent the obstruction of views. As a matter of fact, 2 weeks ago it was announced that height restrictions are being reviewed.


I am a fan of Cape Town. But I don't know why you put it so much above South America. At least they don't seem to have South Africa's struggles to build stadiums for a WC! And South Africa is doing not so well about that issue even with massive help from Germany! I think South America has more chances and will to become developed that South Africa. Sorry, at least this is what South Africa passes as an image!


----------



## Lydon

brickellresidence said:


> then why isnt any construction yet


Well as a matter of fact with that announcement came the announcement of the tallest building in Cape Town which has just begun construction. More are to follow.



Skyline_FFM said:


> I am a fan of Cape Town. But I don't know why you put it so much above South America. At least they don't seem to have South Africa's struggles to build stadiums for a WC! And South Africa is doing not so well about that issue even with massive help from Germany! I think South America has more chances and will to become developed that South Africa. Sorry, at least this is what South Africa passes as an image!


Have you done any research whatsoever? Where on Earth you get your information from is beyond me. Please do some more research from proper sources before you make ill-informed comments. All of the world cup stadiums are on track - some are ahead of schedule. It baffles me where you get the load of garbage you just said from.


----------



## VIRUS

The topic says: Developed Future Megacities.

Megacities are those of more than 10million? So Mexico City, SP, Buenos Aires, Cape Town.... What cities fit in this category?

Developed Cities? Let's say developed is .900 HDI and above... So, Which cities fit in this category? 

Future, ? Let's say 2030? What cities fit in the category of being MEGA by population and having a HID above of .900? 

Now, are we going to consider the whole country as a rule to include a city in this category? Because, just as an example: Buenos Aires by the year 2030 could have a HID above .900 but the country could be below of .900 of HID. So, Are we going to consider Buenos Aires eventhoug the whole country is not above the HID Of .900? 

Let's define what we are to consider before starting to discuss....please..


----------



## Skyline_FFM

Lydon said:


> Well as a matter of fact with that announcement came the announcement of the tallest building in Cape Town which has just begun construction. More are to follow.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you done any research whatsoever? Where on Earth you get your information from is beyond me. Please do some more research from proper sources before you make ill-informed comments. All of the world cup stadiums are on track - some are ahead of schedule. It baffles me where you get the load of garbage you just said from.


There have been plenty of articles here in Germany saying that Brazil was more prepared to host a 2010 games than South Africa!


----------



## Intoxication

Anderson Geimz said:


> STOP HIJACKING THIS THREAD!


I agree! Can this childish bickering end please?


----------



## Lydon

Skyline_FFM said:


> There have been plenty of articles here in Germany saying that Brazil was more prepared to host a 2010 games than South Africa!


We all know that and actually laugh about it on a daily basis. Don't the uninformed media just love crying wolf? Go do your own research and maybe you'll see just how wrong your beloved articles are. Construction is very well documented in the South African forum.


----------



## Skyline_FFM

Well, and an article on BBC saying the same? FIFA was about to take away the games from South Africa!


----------



## Adrian12345Lugo

VIRUS said:


> The topic says: Developed Future Megacities.
> 
> Megacities are those of more than 10million? So Mexico City, SP, Buenos Aires, Cape Town.... What cities fit in this category?
> 
> Developed Cities? Let's say developed is .900 HDI and above... So, Which cities fit in this category?
> 
> Future, ? Let's say 2030? What cities fit in the category of being MEGA by population and having a HID above of .900?
> 
> Now, are we going to consider the whole country as a rule to include a city in this category? Because, just as an example: Buenos Aires by the year 2030 could have a HID above .900 but the country could be below of .900 of HID. So, Are we going to consider Buenos Aires eventhoug the whole country is not above the HID Of .900?
> 
> Let's define what we are to consider before starting to discuss....please..


you're better of starting a new thread...some people just dont know how to let go


----------



## VIRUS

Adrian12345Lugo said:


> you're better of starting a new thread...some people just dont know how to let go


This thread should be close.^^hno:


----------



## Anderson Geimz

Idiots...


----------



## Lydon

Skyline_FFM said:


> Well, and an article on BBC saying the same? FIFA was about to take away the games from South Africa!


This is getting off topic, so this is my last reply - go and read what the PRESIDENT of FIFA had to say about that. My oh my do you have a gap in knowledge.


----------



## Guest

The South Africans aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer - they are under the IMPRESSION that they are developed but the TRUTH is that South Africa is a corrupt country teeming with reverse racism, the daily rape and abuse of children (unlike anywhere else in the world), xenophobia, the blatant abuse of democracy, HUGE crime rate and their cities are more third world than anything that I have seen in Brazil (who I might add is decades ahead of South Africa).I hope that I am proven wrong one day.


----------

