# Can cities grow to 50 million inhabitants?



## bayviews (Mar 3, 2006)

One interesting trend that seems apparent from this discussion is that many of the world's largest cities cities have grown up to a point where they have become unmanageable. 

Mexico City's a case in point, in the 1970s it was slated to become the largest megacity in the world, only to have its growth slow dramatically by the 1980s. 

Just contrast Mexico City with Tokyo, in a country noted for its aging & declining population, but with a much higher quality of governance, planning, public infrastructure, & livability. Tokyo's continued to grow & remains the world's largest megacity.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

brisavoine said:


> You forgot Paris here. Paris is growing thanks to natural growth (much more births than deaths every year), whereas its migration flows are negative (more people are moving out of Paris towards the rest of France than from the rest of France towards Paris). This is a complete reversal from the situation that existed historically until the 1960s when Paris grew thanks to migration, whereas Parisians had a low birth rate, and a negative natural growth. Paris was then described as a sort of black engine attracting the lively parts of France and turning the country into a stagnating desert (people moving to Paris had less children than those staying in the provinces, so Paris was seen as responsible for the stagnation of the French population, particularly between 1900 and 1945).
> 
> Now it's the exact opposite. Paris is the birth engine of France, accounting for a quarter of the country's births, with a higher fertility rate than the rest of France. How things have changed in fifty years!
> 
> ...


Yes, but nobody knows for how long positive migration will continue. The 'black engine' you mentioned is a good example. Paris may not be a black engine today, but nearly every other megacity is. Roughly half of the south Koreans are living in Seoul Metro Area, what happens when all South Koreans live there? 

The migration and urbanization potential is getting smaller and smaller. And, if you look at our planet as a whole, migration balance is always 0. So you have to have areas where the migrants will come from. But when the people move to cities, this potential is getting smaller. South Korea is the most advanced country in this issue, and we have to watch this country as it can show where massive centralization will lead to.


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

Chrissib said:


> The migration and urbanization potential is getting smaller and smaller. And, if you look at our planet as a whole, migration balance is always 0. So you have to have areas where the migrants will come from. But when the people move to cities, this potential is getting smaller. South Korea is the most advanced country in this issue, and we have to watch this country as it can show where massive centralization will lead to.


Don't forget there is also international migration. Internal migration within a country is not the only form of migration. In Spain for example the birth rate is very low, and there is no internal migration towards the big cities because the rural exodus is over, but nonetheless Madrid and Barcelona have grown tremendously in the past 10 years thanks to international migration.

At the moment, with Africa and the Indian subcontinent in full demographic boom, there is simply no limit to international migration. Someday there will be a limit, because even in African the fertility rate will fall below 2, but that won't happen before at least the 22nd century, so for at least a century there is no limit to the potential growth of megacities, except a psychological limit of course (people refusing the arrival of million of immigrants from abroad). That limit exists already in Tokyo: the Japanese refuse international migration, so at the moment Tokyo is growing only thanks to internal migration within Japan, and this of course can't last very long. But cities like Paris, London, and NYC which receive tens of thousands of international immigrants every year still have a great potential for growth.

Concerning Paris, like I said its natural growth is positive and its migration flows are negative, but you have to distinguish internal and international migration. Internal migration flows are negative (more people move from Paris to the French provinces than from the French provinces to Paris every year), but its international flows are positive, and increasing (more people move to Paris from the rest of the world than from Paris to the rest of the world). Between 1999 and 2005, the number of immigrants living in Greater Paris increased from 1,611,989 to 1,916,000 according to INSEE (a 300,000 increase in 6 years).

So even if the French (and Parisian) fertility rate declined, Paris would still continue to grow thanks to international migration. At the current demographic pace, Greater Paris would reach 13.6 million people in 2030, 15.7 million in 2050, and 22.2 million in 2100. Of course the demographic pace will change over time (it will decelerate or accelerate), so these figures are just theoretical, but they give an idea about the current population growth in Greater Paris.


----------



## Azia (Nov 18, 2007)

*...*

next cities to have an population over 10 millions must be
atlanta by 2050
miami 10 million by 2050
dallas 13 million by 2050
bangalore 13 million by 2050 
pune 11 million by 2050
kinshasa 17 million by 2050
khartoum 20 million by 2050
kuala lumpur 10 million by 2050 
manchester -liverpool 12 million by 2050 
johannesburg 14 million by 2050
wash balti 11 million by 2050
toronto 11 million by 2050
pheonix 11 million #
san fran bay 12 million
monterry 10 million
dubai 12 million
melbourne 10 million

????


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

brisavoine said:


> Don't forget there is also international migration. Internal migration within a country is not the only form of migration. In Spain for example the birth rate is very low, and there is no internal migration towards the big cities because the rural exodus is over, but nonetheless Madrid and Barcelona have grown tremendously in the past 10 years thanks to international migration.
> 
> At the moment, with Africa and the Indian subcontinent in full demographic boom, there is simply no limit to international migration. Someday there will be a limit, because even in African the fertility rate will fall below 2, but that won't happen before at least the 22nd century, so for at least a century there is no limit to the potential growth of megacities, except a psychological limit of course (people refusing the arrival of million of immigrants from abroad). That limit exists already in Tokyo: the Japanese refuse international migration, so at the moment Tokyo is growing only thanks to internal migration within Japan, and this of course can't last very long. But cities like Paris, London, and NYC which receive tens of thousands of international immigrants every year still have a great potential for growth.
> 
> ...


Of course, there's also international migration. But you have to notice that this sort of migration can't go without limits. Spain is already working to decrease it's number of foreign people. It's the decision between two pros and cons: Growth and loosing slowly the cultural identity or retaining the identity and refusing growth. Especially for nation states (nearly all countries in Europe and many in Asia) the question of how much immigration should we allow arises. We already have schools, where all the students are foreigners. This school is in one of the most famous problem-wards of Berlin.
Second, our migration sources are running out of people. We in western europe at the moment recieve most of the immigrants from the eastern part of our continent. But eastern Europe is the region with the lowest birth-rates on earth. So the immigrants of the future will increasingly come from areas that culturally are not compatible to western culture. The problems with assimilation are far greater than with east-Europeans.
Third, more and more countries are turning to recieving countries. The Czech Republic and Slovenia are the newest examples. Mathematically speaking, not every country can turn to a recieving country. Imagine if China discovers immigration to mitigate population decrease. If you apply the rate of the USA to China (3‰) then China needs 4 million immigrants every year. The rate for Spain in the last few years was 4-5 times higher.


----------



## bayviews (Mar 3, 2006)

Chrissib said:


> Yes, but nobody knows for how long positive migration will continue. The 'black engine' you mentioned is a good example. Paris may not be a black engine today, but nearly every other megacity is. Roughly half of the south Koreans are living in Seoul Metro Area, what happens when all South Koreans live there?
> 
> The migration and urbanization potential is getting smaller and smaller. And, if you look at our planet as a whole, migration balance is always 0. So you have to have areas where the migrants will come from. But when the people move to cities, this potential is getting smaller. South Korea is the most advanced country in this issue, and we have to watch this country as it can show where massive centralization will lead to.



Hasn't Seoul's growth basically stopped?


----------



## Epi (Jul 21, 2006)

bayviews said:


> One interesting trend that seems apparent from this discussion is that many of the world's largest cities cities have grown up to a point where they have become unmanageable.
> 
> Mexico City's a case in point, in the 1970s it was slated to become the largest megacity in the world, only to have its growth slow dramatically by the 1980s.
> 
> Just contrast Mexico City with Tokyo, in a country noted for its aging & declining population, but with a much higher quality of governance, planning, public infrastructure, & livability. Tokyo's continued to grow & remains the world's largest megacity.


Yup like I stated in my all too long post on the first page, you need good infrastructure for growth. Sure Lagos might have 12 million with most people living in slums, but there's a limit to how many people can live in a slum before the entire thing collaspes upon itself due to complete lack of water/food/resources and increase in disease.

Within a more developed country, only with extremely efficient infrastructure can a city remain a city. Once it starts taking people 2 hours each way to get to work every day, they would rather live somewhere else. So without having ridiculously efficient infrastructure (like Tokyo has), it's very hard to sustain such a city.

Even in NYC, if you live in Long Island, it can take up to 2-3 hours each day to commute each way to work, simply due to traffic.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

bayviews said:


> Hasn't Seoul's growth basically stopped?


I think its suburbanising, with the satellite communities growing. Although the city proper is declining now (it grew only 100,000 in the last decade), the metro has grown by 4 million in the last decade to 24.5 million, and still is. This is the same pattern as seen in London, that saw a pre-war peak of 8.6 million in the city proper reduce massively to 6.4 million in the 1980s, whilst its metro grew to over 10 million in that same time.

Also if ever Korea reunites (most say when rather than if), the North Korean border is only 31 miles (50km) away from Seoul;, with 23 million people behind it.


----------



## Azia (Nov 18, 2007)

*re*

i dont know what the grow rates of los angeles and nyc are, but i think its possible that nyc will have 35 million population by 2050 and la will have the same ...


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

the spliff fairy said:


> I think its suburbanising, with the satellite communities growing. Although the city proper is declining now (it grew only 100,000 in the last decade), the metro has grown by 4 million in the last decade to 24.5 million, and still is. This is the same pattern as seen in London, that saw a pre-war peak of 8.6 million in the city proper reduce massively to 6.4 million in the 1980s, whilst its metro grew to over 10 million in that same time.
> 
> Also if ever Korea reunites (most say when rather than if), the North Korean border is only 31 miles (50km) away from Seoul;, with 23 million people behind it.


The case is simple: Seoul is fully built-up and there's no more space in the city limits, just like Paris. London would have grown further, if there were no Green-Belt.


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

Chrissib said:


> The case is simple: Seoul is fully built-up and there's no more space in the city limits, just like Paris.


There is still empty space within the Paris city limits actually. Some of it will be developped in the coming years (Masséna-Bruneseau area, Batignolles area, Porte de La Chapelle area), and some other unbuilt areas could be developped later, but I'm not sure we want to go that way, because the City of Paris proper is already crowded enough with 24,000 inh/km², and I'm not sure it would be a good idea to bring the density to 40,000 or 50,000 inh/km².

If you're interested in the Masséna-Bruneseau area, which is located inside the City of Paris (in the 13th arrondissement) and which will be built up in the coming years (including some skyscrapers), you can find more information with renders here: http://www.parisrivegauche.com/massena-bruneseau

For the Batignolles area (in the 17th arrondissement), also to be developped in the coming years, you can find more information and renders here: http://www.paris.fr/portail/Urbanisme/Portal.lut?page=multimedialist&page_id=101&id=99&pop=0

For the Porte de la Chapelle area (this area was entirely destroyed by Anglo-American bombing raids in 1944): http://www.paris.fr/portail/Urbanisme/Portal.lut?page=multimedialist&page_id=101&id=164&pop=0


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

brisavoine said:


> Here are the data from the 2000 Chinese census. Note, however, that the total fertility rate (TFR) in the 2000 Chinese census is suspected to be an underestimate because many parents did not record their second children. Researchers believe the real TFR was more like 1.6 in 2000, so you should add something like +0.4 to all the figures that I'm giving below.
> 
> Total fertility rate in 2000:
> China: 1.22 (but independent researchers believe it was in fact 1.6)
> ...


Where did you get this interesting data? Is there data for every city in China?


----------



## oliver999 (Aug 4, 2006)

i think mesure a city is big or small, can use the population of "city center" (or "downtown" in english)? ,there are only 2 city reach 10 million, mumbay,shanghai.


----------



## luci203 (Apr 28, 2008)

oliver999 said:


> i think mesure a city is big or small, can use the population of "city center" (or "downtown" in english)? ,there are only 2 city reach 10 million, mumbay,shanghai.


Not only them. Moscow also have 10 million people (14 in metro) also Istambul have 10 million (12 in metro).


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

luci203 said:


> Not only them. Moscow also have 10 million people (14 in metro) also Istambul have 10 million (12 in metro).


Don't forget Seoul has 11 mio (metro 24 mio)


----------



## rosn19 (Oct 10, 2008)

luci203 said:


> Not only them. Moscow also have 10 million people (14 in metro) also Istambul have 10 million (12 in metro).


so is moscow europe's largest city?


----------



## luci203 (Apr 28, 2008)

rosn19 said:


> so is moscow europe's largest city?


Is a very close race, Moscow proper city populatin is around Istambul's proper city population ~10 millions (metro 12 million), and Moscow metro area is around London's metro population ~14 million (city 8 million).

But considerning that all 3 cities are very dynamic, and the difference is very small, is hard to say at one time wich one is larger.


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

Moscow's urban area has 10.7 million inhabitants, while London's urban area has only 8.5 million inhabitants, so there's really no contest.

http://www.insee.fr/fr/themes/tableau.asp?reg_id=98&ref_id=CMPTEF01114

As for Istanbul, it is only partly in Europe, and Paris, with 10.2 million inhabitants in its urban area at the last census, is the most populated urban area in the EU.


----------



## princeofseoul (Jun 8, 2004)

^ some of the data on INSEE is wrong. Urban Seoul has 16-35 million pop. depending on how it's measured, not 9.6 million. 

A better source for this type of data is demographia.com.


----------



## luci203 (Apr 28, 2008)

brisavoine said:


> Moscow's urban area has 10.7 million inhabitants, while London's urban area has only 8.5 million inhabitants, so there's really no contest.


I say Moscow metro is ~14 million same as London metro ~14 million. Not the urban area. 

- the close contest is at metro area, both Moscow and London have about the same population.

so Moscow is similar is size with Istambul at urban area population, and with London at metro area population.

P.S.
Paris population is 2,167,994 even if the urban area is ~10 million (and metro area ~12 million), because the suburbs have grown very much (like Saint Denise, Neuilly-sur-Seine, Boulogne-Billancourt and others) and forme togheter a big urban area.

Neuilly-sur-Seine









Boulogne-Billancourt









Saint-Denise


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

rosn19 said:


> another question, is russia a developed country? i was looking at the CIA world factbook a few days ago, and they have south africa classified as a developed country, that made me laugh my ass off so much! how can they do that? there is a-lot of things that make me question the data of the CIA world fact book, for example they have the percentages of race of mexico, when mexico never included race in their census, its as if they just got everything right off from their ass. so in that case, south africa having a life expectancy of 55 years and 50% of the people there living below the poverty line and a gdp per head of 11,000USD, then i might as well consider mexico a developed country, considering that mexico is way better than south africa when taking into consideration economic and quality of life factors. i mean, turkey and russia are clearly way better off. mexico is even better off than turkey, and similar to russia. i am not believing the CIA anymore.


Take the list from the IMF. They only list real developed countries as developed countries.


----------



## jonka93 (Jul 22, 2006)

Azia said:


> next cities to have an population over 10 millions must be
> atlanta by 2050
> miami 10 million by 2050
> dallas 13 million by 2050
> ...


On high growth Melbourne is only set to grow to just under 8 million by 2056

http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/[email protected]/mf/3222.0


----------



## weird (Feb 24, 2006)

Isek said:


> Isn't Mardid's metro population now around 5 million? How can a city or urban area reach 10 million within 40 years, assuming Spain as developed and it's population growing at a almost zero rate. Furthermore the fat years of boom in Spain are over. Rising pop. by immigration and financing infrastructure by EU sponsorship is an non substantial growth.


Actually Madrid region is over 6 million and this is a graphic that show the current demography history in Madrid region:









Took from wiki.

Anyway, I don't think that Madrid would reach 10 million, but 8 surely.


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

Chrissib said:


> Madrid WON'T reach 10 million until 2050! With the current demographic situation it's more likely that Madrid will shrink in a few years than it will have 10 million inhabitants.


The deceleration of population growth in the Madrid area is already obvious in the latest data published by the Spanish statistical office. This was the population growth in the Madrid province in the past few years:
- 2005: +117,337 people
- 2006: +114,192
- 2007: +136,714
- 2008: +105,714

In the first quarter of 2009, however, the population growth in the Madrid province according to the Spanish statistical office was only +4,100, which is a trend of +16,400 a year. That's a huge decline compared to the more than 100,000 people a year registered in the previous years.

The same has happened in Barcelona (it's even worse than in Madrid actually, because the population of the Barcelona province declined by 6,760 people in the first quarter of 2009). As a result of these big changes, the two cities that grow the most in the EU in absolute terms are now Paris and London (about +85,000 people per year in the Paris metro area, and about +70,000 people per year in the London metro area, based on figures from the past few years).


----------



## weird (Feb 24, 2006)

^
But this is due to the crisis period. Will crisis last till 2050? Obviously not and population will grow again with international and internal migrations.
However, it's quite difficult (almost impossible) to Madrid to reach the ten millions inhabitants, but I really think that eight is quite possible because Madrid region is one of the most competitive in Spain and the city is building several residential areas, new services, etc.
Less than two millions in forty years? It doesn't sound that irreal, nah?


----------



## Isek (Feb 13, 2005)

Regarding the Madrid growth: What's about the ecological component? What's about sustainability? Central and southern Spain is more or less a desert.


----------



## TEHR_IR (Mar 1, 2008)

Chrissib said:


> But then whole Iran would be living in Teheran:lol: 25 million in 2050 is more realistic given that the Iranian population will start to decrease in the 2040s, but I think even earlier.


no cuz Iran's poulation is now near 80 million and before 1979 it was only 35million in 30 years it growed up whit near 50million....... so it won't amaze me if Tehran reach 50 million cuz Tehran metro is already near 19-20 million..


----------



## Minato ku (Aug 9, 2005)

Iran poplulation is 70 million inhabitants and Tehran metro is about 13-15 million inhabitants and only 7.7 million inhabitants for the urban area. 
Secondly as Chrissib, the growth of Iran is not as impressible as it was 20 years ago.


----------



## TEHR_IR (Mar 1, 2008)

Minato ku said:


> Iran poplulation is 70 million inhabitants and Tehran metro is about 13-15 million inhabitants and only 7.7 million inhabitants for the urban area.
> Secondly as Chrissib, the growth of Iran is not as impressible as it was 20 years ago.


No Tehran (province) metro is 19-20 million and Iran is now near 80 million and and Tehran urban is already 9million.... cuz all the people from the villages and towns are moving to Tehran these days, cuz Tehran has more job oppertunities for them, back in the late 90s-2000 it was 69million now it has raised whit some 8-9 million... 
those counters that show you the population are only from people who have papers and citizenship and are legal in Iran.
but not from those people who are not, like some millions of migrants that are in Iran...
if you tell them up whit your 70 million you will be near 80 million....
also more and more Iranians from foreign countries are going back to Iran...


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

TEHR_IR said:


> No Tehran (province) metro is 19-20 million and Iran is now near 80 million and and Tehran urban is already 9million.... cuz all the people from the villages and towns are moving to Tehran these days, cuz Tehran has more job oppertunities for them, back in the late 90s-2000 it was 69million now it has raised whit some 8-9 million...
> those counters that show you the population are only from people who have papers and citizenship and are legal in Iran.
> but not from those people who are not, like some millions of migrants that are in Iran...
> if you tell them up whit your 70 million you will be near 80 million....
> also more and more Iranians from foreign countries are going back to Iran...


Irans fertility rate is 1.7 and by far the lowest in the middle east. Iran will maybe peak at 85 million, and then it will shrink. Tehran's fertility rate is 1.4 so if more and morew people move to Tehran, the fertility will fall down further, accelerating the population decline in the future.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

Isek said:


> Regarding the Madrid growth: What's about the ecological component? What's about sustainability? Central and southern Spain is more or less a desert.


It's all about energy. If the water needs can't be satisfied, why not using solar power to desalinate water and pump it to Madrid. I don't think that ecology would be the problem.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

weird said:


> ^
> But this is due to the crisis period. Will crisis last till 2050? Obviously not and population will grow again with international and internal migrations.
> However, it's quite difficult (almost impossible) to Madrid to reach the ten millions inhabitants, but I really think that eight is quite possible because Madrid region is one of the most competitive in Spain and the city is building several residential areas, new services, etc.
> Less than two millions in forty years? It doesn't sound that irreal, nah?


Of course, the crisis will end (I hope so^^). But I doubt that Spain will reach the levels of immighration it reached the last years. The Spaniards are facing a very high unemployment, so international immigration isn't accepted by the population anymore.


----------



## soloveich (Jan 22, 2007)

Moscow has more than 10 millions already...


----------



## Konrad87 (May 2, 2009)

Santa Fe probably?


----------



## TEHR_IR (Mar 1, 2008)

Chrissib said:


> Irans fertility rate is 1.7 and by far the lowest in the middle east. Iran will maybe peak at 85 million, and then it will shrink. Tehran's fertility rate is 1.4 so if more and morew people move to Tehran, the fertility will fall down further, accelerating the population decline in the future.


Hahaha Iran's population is still growing high..and besides most people I know has not less than 3 children and Iran isn't the lowest comparing to Syria and Iraq for example....
there are even people above 100 years in Iran so it's not much diffrent than western countries....
and besides Tehran is not the only Metropolis in Iran we have:

Tehran
Mashad
Isfahan
Shiraz
Bandar abbas
...............
the don't move only to Tehran but also to bigger cities like those that I mentioned...
also the population of Iran is only 65-70% Iranians the others are Turks, Afghani, Arab, Armenian, Tajaki, .....

There are yearly thousands of people that are moving to Iran from foreign countries, also Iran has the highest population in the Middle East.....


----------



## Isek (Feb 13, 2005)

^^^
What a stupid post! Any sources? Any reliable data? Why are many people so proud by looking at high fertility rates in their country? Inferiority complex?

It seems that some people still think that a high population growth is equal to some kind of "powerness" characteristic. Look how fast many Muslim or many African countries are growing - but will they ever be a developed countries, with lucky people living in?


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

According to the Population Reference Bureau, a well informed NGO whose figures I usually find very accurate, the population of Iran will reach 100.2 million in 2050. According to the UN Population Division, the population of Iran will reach 96.98 million in 2050.

Concerning fertility, the UN Population Division say Iran has a fertility rate of about 1.8, whereas the Population Reference Bureau say Iran has a fertility rate of about 2.1.


----------



## TEHR_IR (Mar 1, 2008)

Isek said:


> ^^^
> What a stupid post! Any sources? Any reliable data? Why are many people so proud by looking at high fertility rates in their country? Inferiority complex?
> 
> It seems that some people still think that a high population growth is equal to some kind of "powerness" characteristic. Look how fast many Muslim or many African countries are growing - but will they ever be a developed countries, with lucky people living in?


one: did I ever used the word proud??
two: what do you mean that Iran isn't developed ??? check the forums!
and this is a FORUM you can post everything you want here!!! so my post isn't stupid!


----------



## Isek (Feb 13, 2005)

^^^

Of course Iran is developed. Highly developed!

Yes, i've a feeling that many people are PROUD about having megacities in their home country. But yes, you've not said that you are proud.


----------



## TEHR_IR (Mar 1, 2008)

^^ i just try to say that everything is possible maybe there will be an unexpected boom... I don't like over populated city's they are a total chaos and dirty and also I go twice a year to Iran and yes my prove are my eyes their are allot of foreign people in Iran mostly Afghan and Armenian we use Afghan people for the building sector and stuff....
but anyway megacity's are only good ifthey have a good infrastructure like Tokyo


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

foadi said:


> such ridiculous sprawl annoys me. i would rather have 50 million ppl in a relatively small area, say 5,000 km2


That creates a very comfortable density of 10,000/km². It would be a compromise between high density and individuality.


----------



## Azia (Nov 18, 2007)

abrandao said:


> Greater São Paulo´s population is very difficult to measure. The city proper has an estimated population of *11 million* (2008).
> 
> The official metropolitan area, the one established by a national law (39 municipalities), has a total population of some *20 million*.
> 
> ...


sao paulo will ever be one of the biggest 10 cities worldwide , but we can see a many new more cities that become megacity status ..


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

Azia said:


> sao paulo will ever be one of the biggest 10 cities worldwide , but we can see a many new more cities that become megacity status ..


aree thou surre?


----------



## Almere-Fanboy (Nov 19, 2008)

I think such huge citie's will be dangerous. What do you do if the city needs to be evacuated? What happens if many people go to the same place in the same time? They get squized!


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

Azia said:


> i think its impossible to see a judge -dred model of megacities in the next 200 years ,but we want see a few cities that form megalopolises of more than 50 million ,inhabitans with an huge area the first must be the corrider between washington and boston , philadelhia and nyc are already merged togheter ,washington / balti and philly are not far from it , i think in 2040 boston will merged with springfield, and springfield with hartford ... hartford are already merged with the nyc-yonkers stamforfd ,bridgeport corridor ,we can see a megaurban -corridor of 70-90 million people by 2040 ...


Although anything is possible, I don't think that the NE Corridor will ever be that big. 

I think, maybe 60 million _at most_ is possible, and that is if migration to other states goes down to a trickle (or even positive migration), and immigration stays constant. Maybe also if births increase a lot. But since by 2040, a lot of the Baby Boomers will be dying like flies or already dead, I expect the death rate to increase and maybe major parts of region will see population decline.


----------



## bayviews (Mar 3, 2006)

Substructure said:


> Not off topic. Every year the US spends about a thousand billions on weaponry. That's indeed money that could be used for different goals.
> Additionally, "The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute estimates that in 2007 military expenditures for the world were $1,339,000,000,000."
> Think about what could be done if this money was invested for the people instead.
> 
> edit : to put things in perspective, since the question was about what the US could do if it decreased its military spending: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/01/17/business/0117-biz-webLEONHARDT.gif


Pick up the US newsweeklies or the cable TV. So many of the stories are what are we going to do about Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Somalia, North Korea, etc. 

I just wish there were more strores about what we're going to do about places like Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, Flint, Youngstown, etc. 

No we can't ignore failing states. 

I just wish though we'd focus more on what's the future for our own failing cities.


----------



## Anderson Geimz (Mar 29, 2008)

abrandao said:


> But if we consider the whole urban area that surrounds São Paulo (which would be the same as a Metropolitan Statistical Area), then we could easily count more than *26 million inhabitants *, as for 2008.


Incorrect. That would be a CSA not a MSA. "Urban area" is something entirely different and it doesn't help the discussion that people can't seem to use the correct terms.


----------



## Anderson Geimz (Mar 29, 2008)

bayviews said:


> However, the most consistent population comes from the UN count of urban agglomerations, Sao Paulo comes in at 18.3 million as of 2005, that's the
> 5th largest city region.


Ehh no, not really. I don't understand why you are hanging on to that...

The UN uses figures provided by the different governments themselves, so you get an whole array of incomparable figures.

"Urban agglomeration" is quite a useless way to measure the "true" size of a city anyway. The UA of London is 8.5 million because of the Green Belt. are you really claiming that London is just a city of 8.5 million?


----------



## abrandao (Sep 8, 2006)

Anderson Geimz said:


> Incorrect. That would be a CSA not a MSA. "Urban area" is something entirely different and it doesn't help the discussion that people can't seem to use the correct terms.


Sorry if I made you feel nervous. But I am actually not obliged to know how a foreign country considers their metro areas. What I know for sure is that São Paulo would be much bigger than it is (as considered in Brazil) if it were analised the same way the US Census Board do in the USA, with US agglomerations. 

By the way, instead of criticizing me you should explain to us the difference between one and another (CSA and MSA). I mean, if you know that.

Criticizing people doesn´t help the discussion. kay:


----------



## dnobsemajdnob (Jan 29, 2009)

If we use Anderson's calculations, Sao Paulo probably has about 35 million people. It's enormous and probably in the top 5 biggest cities after Tokyo, Shanghai, Mexico City and Jakarta and slightly bigger than London, New York, Paris, Cairo and Seoul.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

Xusein said:


> Although anything is possible, I don't think that the NE Corridor will ever be that big.
> 
> I think, maybe 60 million _at most_ is possible, and that is if migration to other states goes down to a trickle (or even positive migration), and immigration stays constant. Maybe also if births increase a lot. But since by 2040, a lot of the Baby Boomers will be dying like flies or already dead, I expect the death rate to increase and maybe major parts of region will see population decline.


But what is the reason that so many people emigrate from the wealthiest region of the US? Normally, the people move to the rich regions as there are the most well paid jobs.


----------



## Aiacos (May 28, 2009)

In Mexico thera are proyect to make some new citys. I think 8 new metropolis (more than 1 million people), 16 small citys (between 500,000 and 1 million) and many rural areas. So many population of big cities will be spreading... but it was stopped because of the crisis, so it will took more that expected.


----------



## randomuser2349 (Mar 11, 2009)

JPBrazil said:


> ^^
> 
> Where are Sao Paulo and Rio?



Sao Paulo and Rio are already more than 10 million.


----------



## Anderson Geimz (Mar 29, 2008)

dnobsemajdnob said:


> If we use Anderson's calculations, Sao Paulo probably has about 35 million people. It's enormous and probably in the top 5 biggest cities after Tokyo, Shanghai, Mexico City and Jakarta and slightly bigger than London, New York, Paris, Cairo and Seoul.


Please stop writing on my behalf...

Sao Paulo has a officially defined metro area ("MSA") of 19,7 million (2006) and a combined metro area ("CSA") of 27,2 million (2006).

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


----------



## Ocean Railroader (Jun 18, 2011)

I think it's very possible for a human or a alien city to grow to over 50 million people but the question is would a area have a high enough birthrate to reach that number and hold on to it for a while to allow the city to reach 50 million.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

Ocean Railroader said:


> I think it's very possible for a human or a alien city to grow to over 50 million people but the question is would a area have a high enough birthrate to reach that number and hold on to it for a while to allow the city to reach 50 million.


There is still plenty of population momentum in Africa and South Asia. I see Karachi, Delhi, Manila, Mumbai, Lagos and Jakarta reaching 50 million inhabitants somewhere around 2050. Add Shanghai and the Pearl River Delta if we allow metropolitan areas to merge in the future. The two Chinese metro areas over 50 million inhabitants will be shrinking after 2050 though.


----------



## LFellipe (Aug 10, 2009)

*Sao Paulo megalopolis*









by NASA. http://edcsns17.cr.usgs.gov/NewEarthExplorer/
























Fotos: *Ariel_q* - Flickr
http://www.flickr.com/photos/arielquinteros/sets/72157603776873512/


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

I think below certain population levels mega regions start functioning more like polycentric areas. It becomes just too expensive otherwise and market takes care of itself, especially if a city is not constrained by international borders like Singapore or HK are.


----------



## BrickellResidence (Feb 4, 2008)

looking at the discussion of Madrid's population 5 pages before, now we can see thats probably NOT going to happen LOL


----------



## n20 (Oct 13, 2012)

Chrissib said:


> There is still plenty of population momentum in Africa and South Asia. I see Karachi, Delhi, Manila, Mumbai, Lagos and Jakarta reaching 50 million inhabitants somewhere around 2050. Add Shanghai and the Pearl River Delta if we allow metropolitan areas to merge in the future. The two Chinese metro areas over 50 million inhabitants will be shrinking after 2050 though.


Delhi's metropolitan region (Delhi National Capital Region) already contains 49 million people as per India's 2011 Census.


----------



## UmarPK (Jan 27, 2013)

Already a reality in China.


----------



## FM 2258 (Jan 24, 2004)

the spliff fairy said:


> <snip>


That looks freaking crazy! With local high speed rail connecting these cities it's only going to make these cities easier to grow faster in my opinion. More efficient mobility plus stacking "land" in skyscrapers/highrises will give more room for people to live. Only limitation I guess is to provide enough food distribution, clean water, electricity and an efficient way to dispose of garbage.


----------



## Spocket (Feb 11, 2006)

There already are cities of 50 million people but they're not counted as such because , well , you've got to draw the line somewhere. That , however , is basically the point : Once cities get so big that they abut neighbouring cities , a political line is drawn and "metropolitan" areas cease to take into account all the adjacent areas.

Look at Hong Kong on Google Maps. You don't have to spend much time scrolling but you'll notice that it's pretty much one giant city from Hong Kong to Guangzhou in the north west and Huizhou in the north east. Then you've got Macau across the bay and all the other cities on that side.
That's just one region but it's difficult to argue that it's not basically one contiguous urban structure. About the only reason there's any "open" space at all in the region is because of the mountainous terrain.

As it happens , it's considerably more than 50 million. I believe it was closer to 70 but in any case you can see for yourself that such cities already exist today. We're not talking about spread out suburban sprawl here either : The Chinese don't build single family homes except for the very richest people. To an American or anybody else used to that kind of 'urban' environment , there's practically no open land anywhere in the eastern half of China.

As for living in such cities , it's no different than living in any other city. When cities get that big , they don't tend to be centralized anymore for the simple reason that they can't be. People don't usually bother to venture more than ten kilometers from their home on any given work day and stop feeling familiar with their surrounding once they leave a two or three kilometer radius. So basically it doesn't matter if there are two million or 200 million people because if you live in a city you're not straying too far out of your comfort zone anyway.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

Hong Kong is separated by a border, some farm fields and hillsides from adjacent Shenzhen. However Shenzhen is directly contiguous and urban up into Guangzhou and Foshan. That's 25 million already in one complete but multinodal city.


----------



## Treka (Jan 26, 2013)

skanny said:


> The biggest city in the World actually is one of the richest and healthiest places to live and has minors ecological problems with a quite negligable air and water pollution , big millionar conurbations doesn't mean automatically polluted and crowed areas , but Chinese Cities let us think like this !


I get your point but thats in japan,one of the richest nations in the world with an courteous,civilized population. Imagine 50 million people crowded into a tiny space in africa or india,not going to be a fun time.hno:


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

Treka said:


> I get your point but thats in japan,one of the richest nations in the world with an courteous,civilized population. Imagine 50 million people crowded into a tiny space in africa or india,not going to be a fun time.hno:


Won't happen because as soon as these cities get to 50 million, their countries will already be a lot richer.


----------



## skanny (Aug 9, 2012)

Treka said:


> I get your point but thats in japan,one of the richest nations in the world with an courteous,civilized population. Imagine 50 million people crowded into a tiny space in africa or india,not going to be a fun time.hno:


To make 50 millions persons living in a city , you must have an efficient and coordinated housing program , you must also elaborate a giant transit system wich costs very much , a clean and organized mass transit system is one of the fundamental pillars of a giant megalopolis , hundreds kilometers of railways have to be built , this giant system have to be preserved from weather every year .

In addition , a Big Megalopolis needs rich people to finance the colossal housing projects in far new districts to expand the city , building new CBD's to provide jobs for the new inhabitants ,and these new districs have to be well linked to the central core of the city , with railways and highways , not an easy thing .

A 50 millions city has to regenerate itself and deal with the time , it has to redevelop areas to increase it's lodgmen capacity or to attract tourists to it , not an easy thing when it's a colossal and boundless megalpolis ...

As you can see , African governments don't have the funds to make all a country living in a densely urbanized area , it requires too many things , and the money is the most important ...


----------



## Treka (Jan 26, 2013)

skanny said:


> To make 50 millions persons living in a city , you must have an efficient and coordinated housing program , you must also elaborate a giant transit system wich costs very much , a clean and organized mass transit system is one of the fundamental pillars of a giant megalopolis , hundreds kilometers of railways have to be built , this giant system have to be preserved from weather every year .
> 
> In addition , a Big Megalopolis needs rich people to finance the colossal housing projects in far new districts to expand the city , building new CBD's to provide jobs for the new inhabitants ,and these new districs have to be well linked to the central core of the city , with railways and highways , not an easy thing .
> 
> ...


well,not if half of them live in slums which would be the scenario in africa or india if it were to happen there.


----------



## CNB30 (Jun 4, 2012)

Northeast Megalopolis US by 2020


----------



## Depotmaster (Sep 22, 2007)

Why did nobody metion Guangzhou, which will probably surpass Tokyo? China has already set up plans to connect Guangzhou metro into one agglomeration:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1350483/Largest-city-world-China-build-metropolis-twice-size-Wales.html#axzz2K4Vp0QXr










Hong Kong-Shenhzen-Guangzhou, China, home to about 120 million people


----------



## Elnerico (Aug 12, 2009)

the spliff fairy said:


>


ewww, it's like a gross fungal monoculture. It reminds me of a shaded and damp north side of my school that had a field of literally 1ft/30 cm tall mushrooms with white stalks and blackened tops. I wanted to cut them all down so bad. hno:


----------



## eddeux (Jun 16, 2010)

^^When he said that was the countryside my mind immediately started wondering how large China's wildlife population is.:laugh: Seriously add paved roads, and power/sanitation if it's not already there and it could easily be just another urban area.



Chrissib said:


> Won't happen because as soon as these cities get to 50 million, their countries will already be a lot richer.


Nothing but the truth.kay: It's going to take decades to get to 50 million. By then, infrastructure and urban planning will surely be in place.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

Depotmaster said:


>


^yep that maps inaccurate already, Foshan-Guangzhou-Dongguan-Shenzhen (everything on the east side) have all merged into each other. See Google Earth


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

As shown:

(Foshan is on the left of number 3)










The dividing point between Guangzhou and Dongguan (A) across the river:


----------



## lowenmeister (Oct 1, 2012)

I sure wonder how an industrialized and urbanized Bihar would look like. I did some projections and Bihar would have a population above 200 million in 2050 and the population density would be over 2000/km2 which sure sound like urban density.Who knows maybe Patna will have 50 millon people by then.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

lowenmeister said:


> I sure wonder how an industrialized and urbanized Bihar would look like. I did some projections and Bihar would have a population above 200 million in 2050 and the population density would be over 2000/km2 which sure sound like urban density.Who knows maybe Patna will have 50 millon people by then.


One possibility is that it looks like the flatlands of Taiwan. Taiwan has a population density of 700/km² but it is two thirds mountaineous. Since only very few people live in the mountains, the density in the flatlands is close to 2000/km². 

The difference is though that Bihar has no access to the coast, so all of it's industrial produchts have to be carried away either by truck or train. That will mean that a developed Bihar will most likely have the densiest motorway, road and rail-network in the world. Bihar will be the center of the most densely populated larger region in the world, stretching from Bangladesh to Delhi. The whole Ganges valley will shine as bright as the big coastal delta areas in China, like the Yangze river delta. 

From a demographical perspective India is an interesting case. The very dense Ganges valley is Indias densest and at the same time fastest growing region in terms of population. This region now encompasses 40% of the Indian population (500 million out of 1.2 billion). In 2050 according to projections, this will almost double to 800 million whereas Indias population will be 1.75 billion people so the proportion will rise from the current 40% to 46%. The relative importance of Southern India will shrink as the importance of the dense corridor will grow. 

Realising this, a very dense corridor of 800 million people living at developed level will be a very hard task and India would need to grow a lot faster than it's current 5 to 6%.


----------



## lowenmeister (Oct 1, 2012)

you're right. Taiwan or the Nile delta in Egypt is probably a good comparison
East asia as a whole is denser then the statistics show, Isnt Japan something like 80% mountainous. China is also very mountainous and half of it is desert. South Korea is nearly covered in urban sprawl and the rest is mountains. The Indian subcontinent just looks crazier in the statistics (inhabitants/km2) but most of their area is lowlands and fields.


----------

