# Does size matter?



## bay_area (Dec 31, 2002)

hkskyline said:


> Ironically the political capital of the state is at Sacramento, a far smaller city than either SF or LA. This scenario is repeated across the US.


yeah,
in many(include most large) states, the seat of government isnt usually the largest or most important city.


----------



## ReddAlert (Nov 4, 2004)

I dont know about the bigger the city, the bigger the economy thing. Lagos is huge, yet Milwaukee's economy rivals the entrie nation of Nigeria. 

Milwaukee GDP---55 billion.
Nigeria GDP--55.1 billion.


----------



## Æsahættr (Jul 9, 2004)

Nah kinda, look at the European cities. Like Geneva and the tiny ones that aren't really big but are important anyway.
But it depends on the region.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

Throughout the US, state capitals tend to be smaller cities, such as Sacramento, Albany, and Springfield, Il.

European political capitals are not necessarily the largest cities, as discussed.

Beijing is not China's largest city, yet it is the political capital. Mumbai is India's economic centre while New Delhi is the capital. For the most part the other countries' capitals are the largest cities.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

hkskyline said:


> Throughout the US, state capitals tend to be smaller cities, such as Sacramento, Albany, and Springfield, Il.
> 
> European political capitals are not necessarily the largest cities, as discussed.
> 
> Beijing is not China's largest city, yet it is the political capital. Mumbai is India's economic centre while New Delhi is the capital. For the most part the other countries' capitals are the largest cities.


Honestly I don't like the idea of having the capital as also being the largest city. Manila is an example. It the the centre of almost every economic activity in The Philippines. When there are protest happening , the economy gets affected.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

WANCH said:


> Honestly I don't like the idea of having the capital as also being the largest city. Manila is an example. It the the centre of almost every economic activity in The Philippines. When there are protest happening , the economy gets affected.


Social upheavals can be induced by a combination of social and political factors. A large city will have the population base to stage a protest *regardless* of whether it is a financial capital or a political capital. For example, Hong Kong's protests for democracy and government accountability are politically-induced, but have an economic effect. Many illegal Americans were protesting across the country in the cities. I doubt they'll choose a smaller population center to make their point due to the lack of publicity.

If people want to get together to protest, chances are it'll happen in a larger city since it'll be easier to garrison the numbers. Whether it is an economic or political engine is not as important actually. The matter is to get a huge group to be on the headlines, then the politicians will listen even if they're a few thousand miles away.


----------



## jmancuso (Jan 9, 2003)

yeah i agree...size doesn't matter. would you beleive this town only has about 175K in the city?


----------



## Harkeb (Oct 12, 2004)

I'd prefer to stay in a medium sized city; say San Francisco over NY. I want to get out of the city in no time should it get too much. I dont want to drive for hours before I'm out in the countryside or to get to the nearest beach.


----------



## nygirl (Jul 14, 2003)

I'm one of the few Ladies on here, so i'll put you straight..........................
Yes, size does matter.


----------



## Æsahættr (Jul 9, 2004)

nygirl said:


> I'm one of the few Ladies on here, so i'll put you straight..........................
> Yes, size does matter.


But... engorgeous nerve endings only go in 4 inches into the average ******?


----------



## edsg25 (Jul 30, 2004)

hkskyline said:


> Throughout the US, state capitals tend to be smaller cities, such as Sacramento, Albany, and Springfield, Il.


same would be overwhelmining true of our states' flagship public universities.

take a look at southeast michigan: Detroit, the state's only large city, is often a less attractive destination in its own region to the much smaller city of Ann Arbor.


----------



## edsg25 (Jul 30, 2004)

nygirl said:


> I'm one of the few Ladies on here, so i'll put you straight..........................
> Yes, size does matter.


yours is a great city, nygirl, but for many people, the size of New York ends up being a negative. that doesn't mean there aren't millions of people who see it otherwise. there are. but it certainly does suggest that there are people out there who find they can get a full urban experience in a city that they feel is more manageable in size.

New York is easily a place that can and does accumulate superlatives and mind boggling statistics. But some of those very things serve the city as an entity, as an organic place, more than the people who live and visit it. For example, New York may have enough Afghan restaurants for me to go to a differnt one 365 days a year....but I don't really want Afghan food for 365 consecutive days.

Maybe Baby Bear* of Goldilocks fame had it nailed: "just right" may well be half way between "too hot" and "too cold", as well as between "too big" and "too small".


* no, Baby Bear is not a reference to certain NFL city with a team by that name! I think.


----------



## edsg25 (Jul 30, 2004)

lotrfan55345 said:


> But... engorgeous nerve endings only go in 4 inches into the average ******?


the concept may be clearer to you if you think geographically (rather than humanly) and in American terms: as in New York City and the Grand Canyon.
:bash: :bash:


----------



## UrbanSophist (Aug 4, 2005)

I always use Paris as an example. It's relatively small compared to other cities in its 'league', but its still a lot of people's favorite city. Maybe this city is an exception, though...


----------



## crawford (Dec 9, 2003)

UrbanSophist said:


> I always use Paris as an example. It's relatively small compared to other cities in its 'league', but its still a lot of people's favorite city. Maybe this city is an exception, though...


Paris is quite large; it's the biggest city on the Continent. The region has over 10 million residents. A better example would be Zurich or perhaps Duesseldorf (though if we include the overall Ruhr region, Duesseldorf would be quite large).


----------



## CrazyCanuck (Oct 9, 2004)

I think urbansophist means city proper, and Paris is very very small, isn't it only like 88 square miles of km's or somthing like that? La Defence is actually outside of Paris. By region though Paris is definately large.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

Size matters to a point...but being a Mexico City or a Mumbai (no offense) draws the line.


----------



## Bitxofo (Feb 3, 2005)

crawford said:


> Paris is quite large; it's the biggest city on the Continent. The region has over 10 million residents. A better example would be Zurich or perhaps Duesseldorf (though if we include the overall Ruhr region, Duesseldorf would be quite large).


Moscow and London are much bigger than Paris, and they are in Europe, too.

Size is not so important!
:wink2:


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

WANCH said:


> Like San Francisco or Boston


Or San Diego


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

alex537 said:


> Or San Diego


But isn't San Diego supposed to be the 2nd largest city in California?


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

A neat study would be to do a regression analysis on population and GDP. I think the plot will be a scatter graph with very weak correlation.


----------



## Küsel (Sep 16, 2004)

Once more the Global City map - but this time with the map of Megacities to compare 

World Cities (importance)









Megacities (size - although London, Moscow, Chicago and since shortly Paris are one class too small on the map, but anyway)









*Global Cities (as defined by GaWC in 1999):*

Alpha World Cities:
London - NewYork - Paris - Tokyo
Chicago - Frankfurt - HK - LA - Singapore

Beta World Cities:
SF - Sydney - Toronto - Zurich
Brussels - Madrid - Mexico City - Sao Paulo
Moscow - Seoul

Then third are Gamma World cities and Evidence Cities

*Details - Leading World Cities as defined by GaWC in 2004:*

Well rounded global cities:
1. Very large contribution: London and New York.
Smaller contribution and with cultural bias: Los Angeles, Paris and San Francisco.
2. Incipient global cities: Amsterdam, Boston, Chicago, Madrid, Milan, Moscow, Toronto.

Global niche cities - specialised global contributions
1. Economic: Hong Kong, Singapore, and Tokyo.
2. Political and social: Brussels, Geneva, and Washington.

Subnet articulator cities
1. Cultural: Berlin, Copenhagen, Melbourne, Munich, Oslo, Rome, Stockholm.
Political: Bangkok, Beijing, Vienna.
2. Social: Manila, Nairobi, Ottawa.

Worldwide leading cities 
1. Primarily economic global contributions: Frankfurt, Miami, Munich, Osaka, Singapore, Sydney, Zurich
2. Primarily non-economic global contributions: Abidjan, Addis Ababa, Atlanta, Basle, Barcelona, Cairo, Denver, Harare, Lyon, Manila, Mexico City, Mumbai, New Delhi, Shanghai

*Megacities - Metro size - Global City Ranking*
1 Tōkyō - 34,200,000 - alpha 1
2 Ciudad de México - 22,800,000 - beta 2
3 Seoul (Sŏul) - 22,300,000 - beta 3
4 New York - 21,900,000 - alpha 1
5 São Paulo - 20,200,000 (or by different sources also: 19 mio) - beta 2
6 Mumbai (Bombay) - 19,850,000 - strong evidence
7 Delhi	- 19,700,000 - strong evidence
8 Shanghai - 18,150,000	- gamma 4
9 Los Angeles - 18,000,000 - alpha 2
10 Ōsaka - 16,800,000 - gamma 1
11 Jakarta - 16,550,000 - gamma 1
12 Kolkata (Calcutta) - 15,650,000 - NO evidence as world city
13 Al-Qāhirah (Cairo) - 15,600,000 - some evidence
14 Manila - 14,950,000 - gamma 3
15 Karāchi - 14,300,000	- NO evidence as a world city
16 Moskva - 13,750,000	- beta 3
17 Buenos Aires	- 13,450,000 - gamma 3
18 Dhaka - 13,250,000 - NO evidence as a world city
19 Rio de Janeiro - 12,150,000 - strong evidence
20 Beijing - 12,100,000	- gamma 2
21 London - 12,000,000 (by different sources: 18 mio) - alpha 1
22 Tehrān - 11,850,000 - minimal evidence
23 İstanbul - 11,500,000 (sometimes estimated 13mio) - gamma 3
24 Lagos - 11,100,000 - NO evidence as a world city
25 Shenzhen - 10,700,000 - NO evidence as a world city
26 Paris - 9,950,000 (recently: 11 mio) - alpha 1

As shown there are especially Asian and African megacities that don't have any or only minimal evidences as world cities while the following ALPHA and BETA world cities are not even in this top 16 cathegory:
Alpha: Chicago, Frankfurt, HK, Milan, Singapore
Beta: San Francisco, Sydney, Toronto, Zurich, Brussels, Madrid

Fazit of my little research: SIZE matters only to a certain degree but there is no statistical evidence and correlation visible!


----------



## Minato ku (Aug 9, 2005)

CrazyCanuck said:


> I think urbansophist means city proper, and Paris is very very small, isn't it only like 88 square miles of km's or somthing like that? La Defence is actually outside of Paris. By region though Paris is definately large.


Yes Paris area is large by population and by GDP in Europe
Paris area GDP is more 500 billion US $ ( not ppp )
Paris _11 millions_ has a higher GPD than the Turkey _73 millions inh_


----------



## FastWhiteTA (Jul 24, 2004)

That map of the populations is misleading...there are quite a few metros bigger than Toronto in the USA, yet they are not on there.


----------



## DarkLite (Dec 31, 2004)

that dot that represents guatemala city is incorrect, the population there is in the 2 to 3 million range in the whole area, not 5 like the map shows


----------



## grachtengordeldier (Mar 7, 2006)

Here we go again...juggling with numbers...it proofs esdg25 (is this the correct name? sorry if I am wrong) was right. Endless discussions about numbers...like City X has 4.000.000 inhabitants, NO! it has 5.000.000 because you count wrong etc etc. 
People just keep fighting over it :bash:


----------



## Skybean (Jun 16, 2004)

FastWhiteTA said:


> That map of the populations is misleading...there are quite a few metros bigger than Toronto in the USA, yet they are not on there.



No there are not, other than the ones listed. I wonder why you had to single out Toronto.


----------



## Küsel (Sep 16, 2004)

Hey come on - it's the only map I found and I myself mentioned that it is not totally correct!!!!! What about the numbers? I spent 1-2 hours to make a small research to check a probable correlation between size and influence of a city and you all go after - "THIS MAP IS CRAP"!!! Yes I know it is crap, but that was not the point, READ what stands below!

Thanks a lot!


----------



## ♣628.finst (Jul 29, 2005)

OK, Now Zurich is so famous that an average guy in Saskatchewan would notice its importance. Well, Zurich metro has relatively small population of just around 1 million. While here we have Calgary and Edmonton of similar size which is almost unknown outside North America. 

Let's see how Zurich influence North America... Zurich-made products (Watches, Chocolates, bikes, etc.) are easily available in department stores in Calgary, but not vice versa.


----------



## ♣628.finst (Jul 29, 2005)

Yes, size doesn't matter. I don't think we have forumers from Lagos or Abidjan here.


----------



## Küsel (Sep 16, 2004)

Xäntårx said:


> OK, Now Zurich is so famous that an average guy in Saskatchewan would notice its importance. Well, Zurich metro has relatively small population of just around 1 million. While here we have Calgary and Edmonton of similar size which is almost unknown outside North America.
> 
> Let's see how Zurich influence North America... Zurich-made products (Watches, Chocolates, bikes, etc.) are easily available in department stores in Calgary, but not vice versa.


Partly right - although Zurich metro is 1.8mio (1.1 mio is the closer agglomeration) and watches are made in the Jura cities as Biel, La Chaux-de-Fonds or St.Imier and chocolate comes from the Romandie (althogh Sprüngli is indeed Zurich ). The city is also headquarters of FIFA and Zug in the metro is the petroleum center of the world. ABB originates from BBC (Baden and Oerlikon - the latter was home to Bührle). Sulzer is another famous company in Winterthur. CS is from Zurich (UBS from Basel). 

But it's not only about economy - we have with the Street Parade one of the biggest street festivals in the world (after Notting Hill Carnival and Sao Paulo Gay Parade), and are the craddle of Reformation (Zwingli), Dadaism and the Russian Revolution (Lenin) as well as a hot spot in the 68 and 80 youth revolts. The theater (Schauspielhaus), museum of modern art and opera as well as the Tonhalle are world top culture institutions. The cultural and subcultural life (including clubs and restaurants) was vote one of the richest and densest of the continent and with Iron Man Switzerland and the annual athletic meeting it's also a sport hub.

Oh god, we are soooooo good :lol: - And I think most people can find similar records for THEIR city...


----------



## ChrisLA (Sep 11, 2002)

harkerb said:


> I'd prefer to stay in a medium sized city; say San Francisco over NY. I want to get out of the city in no time should it get too much. I dont want to drive for hours before I'm out in the countryside or to get to the nearest beach.



Sorry dude to burst your bubble, but it takes a long time to get out of the San Francisco Bay metro. I really don't see it as any better than New York, and believe me it seems to get worse every visit. I drove up from LA last week, and just came back early Saturday. Traffic was bad going in and leaving, and it was bad (really bad) at 2 in the afternoon, so imagine what rush hour is like. I was actually so frustated at how bad its gotten, than I limit my driving to after 8pm when I need to drive out to the burbs. 80 freeway heading toward Sacramento, and 580 to Stockton are a nightmare. I'm sure going to San Jose is just as bad, but I didn't use any routes going that way, but I have in the past, and it wasn't pretty.

Using the public transportation was the best way to go, but its very expensive compared to NYC. $7.20 round trip from Oakland to downtown San Franicsco is rediculous when its a short distance. Plus when you arrive in San Francisco you have to pay seperate for the buses and trains (Muni) in the city.

Anyway just thought I let you know its not any different than traffic in NYC, or even LA for that matter. Its just as bad if not worst in some cases. The last I read was the metro was over 7 million now, but someone locally can correct me if I'm wrong. Thats not small, nor medium, but large IMO.


----------



## Küsel (Sep 16, 2004)

San Fran IS a huge Metro and really about the size of Teheran or Lima with something over 7mio. In think in NA only MC, NY, Chicago and LA are larger metros.


----------



## FastWhiteTA (Jul 24, 2004)

Skybean said:


> No there are not, other than the ones listed. I wonder why you had to single out Toronto.


I'll list the other metros in the US that are larger than Toronto by population (metro populations according to Emporis):

Toronto - 5.1m

Washington DC/ Baltimore- 8.2m
San Francisco - 7.2m
Dallas Fort Worth - 6.1m
Philadelphia- 6m
Boston- 5.8m
Houston- 5.4m
Miami-5.4m
Detroit- 5.4m
Atlanta - 5.2m

I know you couldn't put them all on there because it wouldn't be a very legible map, but to say Toronto is larger than every metro in the US but those listed is wrong.


----------



## Küsel (Sep 16, 2004)

I don't know why especially Canadians think that Toronto (urban area 4.6mio, metro 5.2mio) is one of the biggest cities on the continent, it's just not true. But also some of emporis numbers exagerrated. US combined metro areas 2004: 
1	New York City NY	21,578,930
2	Los Angeles	CA	17,262,730
3	Chicago	IL	9,549,014
4	Washington	DC	7,816,910
5	San Francisco	CA	7,154,350
6	Philadelphia	PA	5,922,253
7	Boston	MA	5,611,244
8	Dallas	TX	5,589,670
9	Detroit	MI	5,415,338
10	Miami	FL	5,288,796
11	Houston	TX	5,075,733
12	Atlanta	GA	4,766,133


----------



## Indyman (Apr 1, 2005)

edsg25 said:


> Sometimes I feel I'm the Skyscrapper board odd ball. Or village idiots (others probably agreement with me!  )
> 
> But frankly I just don't get it. At all.
> 
> ...


I tend to agree. I think a city that is overrated just because it is large is Tianjin. Other than a huge population it doesnt really measure up.


----------



## ♣628.finst (Jul 29, 2005)

Kuesel said:


> I don't know why especially Canadians think that Toronto (urban area 4.6mio, metro 5.2mio) is one of the biggest cities on the continent, it's just not true. But also some of emporis numbers exagerrated. US combined metro areas 2004:
> 1	New York City NY	21,578,930
> 2	Los Angeles	CA	17,262,730
> 3	Chicago	IL	9,549,014
> ...



Toronto should be around the size of Philly, Boston, Dallas or SF. Detroit-Windsor have roughly the same pop. size as Toronto-Missisauga.


----------



## grachtengordeldier (Mar 7, 2006)

I live in a city some people call the Blue Banana and it seems to have 25.000.000 inhabitants. It goes from Birmingham (or even Manchester) via my town to Ruhr-Area, Brussels, Paris, Frankfurt, Munich, Zürich and Milan. Hell, I think my city even has 55.000.000 inhabitants!


----------



## bayviews (Mar 3, 2006)

ChrisLA said:


> Sorry dude to burst your bubble, but it takes a long time to get out of the San Francisco Bay metro. I really don't see it as any better than New York, and believe me it seems to get worse every visit. I drove up from LA last week, and just came back early Saturday. Traffic was bad going in and leaving, and it was bad (really bad) at 2 in the afternoon, so imagine what rush hour is like. I was actually so frustated at how bad its gotten, than I limit my driving to after 8pm when I need to drive out to the burbs. 80 freeway heading toward Sacramento, and 580 to Stockton are a nightmare. I'm sure going to San Jose is just as bad, but I didn't use any routes going that way, but I have in the past, and it wasn't pretty.
> 
> Using the public transportation was the best way to go, but its very expensive compared to NYC. $7.20 round trip from Oakland to downtown San Franicsco is rediculous when its a short distance. Plus when you arrive in San Francisco you have to pay seperate for the buses and trains (Muni) in the city.
> 
> Anyway just thought I let you know its not any different than traffic in NYC, or even LA for that matter. Its just as bad if not worst in some cases. The last I read was the metro was over 7 million now, but someone locally can correct me if I'm wrong. Thats not small, nor medium, but large IMO.



All the negatives that you've mentioned about the Bay Area are true. The fragmention into too many different transit operations (politics) can make transfers very confusing. The Bay Area public transit is certainly not as extensive or unified as in NYC. But you'd have to admit that the Bay Area has a more comprehensive public transit system as compared with LA, Seattle & other major West Coast metros.


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

I agree with Kuesel. I dont' think it's so much the case in Europe as it is in North America. There are lots of small cities that are cool to live in. In England, the population's more evenly populated across the country.


----------



## EtherealMist (Jul 26, 2005)

Yes, size matters. Its what seperates cities from towns and villages in the first place. All the Alpha world cities are huge metro areas. Tokyo by far the largest, and its one of the top four, not a coincidence. Also, NYC is the largest city in the USA and it is also considered the most powerful city in the USA, not a coincidence. 

Of course size isn't the be-all-end-all measure of cities, but it certainly _matters_. There are exceptions, like Mumbai but im talking about developed first world countries here. I know what seperates Boston and NYC, about 7 million people.


----------



## AcesHigh (Feb 20, 2003)

hkskyline said:


> I'm talking about influence on a global scale. Large cities may have a regional influence, but certainly not on a multinational scale like New York or London. Geneva and Brussels are prime examples of smaller cities with a disproportionate amount of *global* influence.


these small cities have artificial influence due to some global instrument offices being built in them. Such offices could had been built in any other small city, so we can just say Brussels and Geneva wouldnt have ANY INFLUENCE AT ALL OF THEIR OWN if not for these particular things.

New York on the other hand, has huge influence because of UN offices, but even without them, would still be one if not the most important city in the world.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

AcesHigh said:


> these small cities have artificial influence due to some global instrument offices being built in them. Such offices could had been built in any other small city, so we can just say Brussels and Geneva wouldnt have ANY INFLUENCE AT ALL OF THEIR OWN if not for these particular things.
> 
> New York on the other hand, has huge influence because of UN offices, but even without them, would still be one if not the most important city in the world.


By that logic, any major world financial centre would also be artificial, because some global multinational decided to build offices there as well. They could be built elsewhere, such as a world headquarters in London over New York.

Geneva has a lot more than just the UN. They're also home to a number of international NGOs. Brussels has a huge EU branch. These smaller cities have less 'anchor' tenants, but their influence is still very significant. In fact, the UN has a more widespread international influence than any multinational business' reach (maybe except Coke).


----------



## AndySocks (Dec 8, 2005)

hkskyline said:


> Ironically the political capital of the state is at Sacramento, a far smaller city than either SF or LA. This scenario is repeated across the US.


This was done purposely, because people in rural areas are suspicious of the "big cities", and before the 20th Century, America was by far a rural nation. Most capitals at the time, with a few exceptions like Boston, were small towns, not even fifth or so if you were to rank by population... of course, the fact that they are the capitals and that the state government is based there led to their growth, inevitably, so many of them rose in prominance, while many others still stay relatively low-key.


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

Even now, besides Phoenix, Boston and Denver, most of the capitals are not large cities/the largest cities in the state, just to redistribute the power.


----------



## Indyman (Apr 1, 2005)

Indy is the largest city by lan enormous amount and the state capital.


----------



## Third of a kind (Jun 20, 2004)

hydrogen said:


> Port-au-Prince has 1.3 million people. There are much smaller cities in the US and elsewhere in the world with far stronger economies.


That is a very good point

especially if you compare a city like Port-au-prince to say, Des Moines

just because places have large populations or are the largest in their respected reigions or country doesn't mean that its always the best

ChrisLa makes a good point about traffic too, look the DC area..my god the traffic is nuts, it reminds me of being here in New York..but sometimes even worse when I go down there


----------



## Third of a kind (Jun 20, 2004)

Indyman said:


> Indy is the largest city by lan enormous amount and the state capital.



Didn't Indy annex alot of the surrounding area??


----------



## kashyap3 (Jul 11, 2006)

Size definitely matters
but size in terms of what?
size of the population, or the size of the Incorporated area of the city?

I think size of population of a city matters more than the area


----------



## edsg25 (Jul 30, 2004)

Perhaps a minor point. and certainly arbitrary in nature.

however.

Time Magazine came out with one of its special report books. This one dealt with the extreme forces of naure...be they earthquakes, hurricanes, tornados, drought, mudslide, temperture extreme, etc.

In the end, they related a good percentage of them (particularly the weather related) to global warming and included a map of the world which identified, among other things, "trouble spots". These included any metropolitan area with a 10,000,000+ population. Only NY and LA appeared on the US portion of the map. Convesely on the skyscraper forum, 10,000,000+ equates heaven-on-earth

Now I'm not suggesting for a minute here that places like Chicago, the Bay Area, Wash/Balt, South Florida, etc., aren't also helping to destroy the planet in the same degree that the other two are. I just found it interesting that 10,000,000+ came up as the real "problem areas".

We fawn over population size and density here on the skyscraper board. We do have a tendency to see bigger as better. And we look forward to larger, denser cities.

I'm not sure if that type of thinking wouldn't be just fine if we lived on a planet that could put with with any type of absue we can dish out. We don't. And it can't. 

If we don't change our thinking about increased urban population and density, we run the same risk to the planet as we do if we believe that burning fosil fuels has no effect on the ozone layer. Our paradigms shape our policies.

Either way, our thinking becomes totally out of touch with the forces and rhythms of nature...and we sew the very seeds of our destruction doing the things we seem to like most. We may want to keep that in mind next time we look and drool at a picture of tall buildings packed together like sardines and respond: "Oh my God! What fucking density!" Because chances are pretty good, God or no God, that we will get fucked by it.


----------



## island_boi (Oct 25, 2006)

having a large population has pros and cons.. but it's more of a disadvantage especially in emerging economies.


----------



## JuanArturo (Apr 7, 2006)

bayviews said:


> City size & growth matters mostly to local political & business elites & other civic boosters
> 
> I’m not usually given to paraphrasing Vladimir Putin. But one of his first statements to was saying to Russians, that rather than worrying about being a big Empire, we should strive to be the next Portugal. Meaning, let’s try to match Portugal’s progress in getting get our living standards & quality up.
> 
> ...


You really consider New York city a place where most people wouldn't want to live in?


----------



## tablemtn (May 2, 2006)

In the US, I think most people would not want to live in NYC. People want things like yards, land, space, car garages, etc.


----------



## byrek me mish (Nov 19, 2006)

if you know how to control your city, then size doesn't matter, like in many other cases  it's all about control


----------



## aquablue (Mar 18, 2006)

Listen, these population numbers are all misleading. You can't say that NY has 21million and london only 12, because the land area NY takes up with those figures is massive in comparison. Given that land area, London would have a larger population. There is no way DC and baltimore can be combined as one really, they are seperate entities - its foolish to combine them into one city. The fact is, you can't compare metros because of the different rules governing their measurment in different countries, and the fact that the USA tends to give metros huge land areas in comparison to other parts of the wrd


----------



## tablemtn (May 2, 2006)

Metro areas aren't supposed to be based on land - they're supposed to be based on continuous urbanization and commuting patterns. The space between Baltimore and DC is continuously urbanized, so, the cities are both urban poles within a single metro area. If you don't think the NYC metro area has 21 million people, which parts of the area that are included do you think should be excluded?


----------



## elfabyanos (Jun 18, 2006)

Land area is misleading - the town I grew up in has a population of 20,000, but if compared to nyc using the land area it would be about 10 million.

The way I see it the metro area ends when you reach farmland, forest, sea, lake or anywhere else that isn't directly related to people. What really matters to me is the vibe of a city, in that case population is not directly related. Density perhaps, and again that has it's benefits for tall buildings, that may even be the reason I love skyscrapers, because I feel they reflect the underlying vibrancy of the city. It may not be the particular vibe I like, but wherever it happens it shows an energy that fascinates me about the human race.


----------



## aquablue (Mar 18, 2006)

I live in D.C, there are fields and open space between baltimore and D.C. 
The 21 million figure includes bridgeport, PA, etc...there are fields between NYC and bridgeport, etc.. London has a green belt, so its unfair to use continuous urbanization, as its satellite cities such as reading, etc.. are surrounded by farmland. NY is not 21 million, its just too large a land area, the largest of any metro in the world. You'd have to include places like Brighton, etc.. into London's figures if you are going to be fare. Many people commute from these cities into central london but they are not included in the metro population. This is why its unfair to compare metro populations.


----------



## aquablue (Mar 18, 2006)

Just saying that those CMA NY figures (21m) include areas in PA, and large independent cities such as Bridgeport, etc.. I believe NY to be more around 18million, the MSA pop. Even though people commute from Bridgeport, PA, etc. to NYC, then why is it OK to add these communites into the population and not add areas such as Reading, Brighton, etc.. to London's population as they are similar to cities like Bridgeport. London's urbanization pattern is different, due to the greenbelt land that is not developable, which leads to a scattering of outlying communities surrounded by farmland. Therefore, London's population would be over 15 million in realiity if going by a similar standard to NYC or Los Angeles. Just showing you how it is difficult to compare the size of metros given the different standards used in different countries.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

hkskyline said:


> I'm talking about influence on a global scale. Large cities may have a regional influence, but certainly not on a multinational scale like New York or London. Geneva and Brussels are prime examples of smaller cities with a disproportionate amount of *global* influence.


I have heard that Brussels is home to the largest international press corps in the world.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

AcesHigh said:


> these small cities have artificial influence due to some global instrument offices being built in them. Such offices could had been built in any other small city, so we can just say Brussels and Geneva wouldnt have ANY INFLUENCE AT ALL OF THEIR OWN if not for these particular things.
> 
> New York on the other hand, has huge influence because of UN offices, but even without them, would still be one if not the most important city in the world.


I have to agree with HKskyline here. 

In Brussels you have for example not less than around 100.000 thousand people busy to shape Europe's future (may it be in a positive or negative way) either by working directly for the Union or indirectly. Thats a bit more than a few buildings I would guess.


----------



## tablemtn (May 2, 2006)

Size does matter, of course. People have pointed out that Lagos is huge, but not a "world city." But you know, it IS the unofficial capital of west Africa. It has a huge music scene that has influenced music around the world. It has a big role in the world's oil industry. It has produced quite a few first-rate writers. 

Taken together, those things and others do make Lagos a lot more important, both regionally and worldwide, than a smaller Nigerian city like Kano or Ibadan.


----------



## OhioTodd (Jul 25, 2006)

samsonyuen said:


> Even now, besides Phoenix, Boston and Denver, most of the capitals are not large cities/the largest cities in the state, just to redistribute the power.


Well as Indyman pointed out there is Indianapolis, Des Moines Iowa, Birmingham Alabama, Little Rock Arkansas, Honolulu Hawaii, Salt Lake City Utah, Providence Rhode Island, Oklahoma City, etc.


----------



## EtherealMist (Jul 26, 2005)

Chicago LA and New York have their own sub-forums for a reason


----------



## sbarn (Mar 19, 2004)

ChrisLA said:


> Sorry dude to burst your bubble, but it takes a long time to get out of the San Francisco Bay metro. I really don't see it as any better than New York, and believe me it seems to get worse every visit. I drove up from LA last week, and just came back early Saturday. Traffic was bad going in and leaving, and it was bad (really bad) at 2 in the afternoon, so imagine what rush hour is like. I was actually so frustated at how bad its gotten, than I limit my driving to after 8pm when I need to drive out to the burbs. 80 freeway heading toward Sacramento, and 580 to Stockton are a nightmare. I'm sure going to San Jose is just as bad, but I didn't use any routes going that way, but I have in the past, and it wasn't pretty.
> 
> Using the public transportation was the best way to go, but its very expensive compared to NYC. $7.20 round trip from Oakland to downtown San Franicsco is rediculous when its a short distance. Plus when you arrive in San Francisco you have to pay seperate for the buses and trains (Muni) in the city.
> 
> Anyway just thought I let you know its not any different than traffic in NYC, or even LA for that matter. Its just as bad if not worst in some cases. The last I read was the metro was over 7 million now, but someone locally can correct me if I'm wrong. Thats not small, nor medium, but large IMO.


I agree that many people don't realize that the SF Bay Area is a huge metropolitan area... however, having grown up there and now a resident of New York City, I have to say its MUCH easier to escape the "City" in SF than NYC. All you have to do in San Francisco is jump in your car (and yes, its actually feasible to own a car in San Fran unlike New York), and drive north across the Golden Gate and you're in the Marin Headlands. There's no such option in New York City, something which I sorely miss.


----------



## broadie (Jan 21, 2006)

yes size dose matter a city with 10000000 million people is going to have a better skyline then a city with 1 person


----------



## bayviews (Mar 3, 2006)

broadie said:


> yes size dose matter a city with 10000000 million people is going to have a better skyline then a city with 1 person



True, generally that's the case. But comparing two West Coast North American metros, does LA, population over 16 million really have a better skyline than say Vancouver, population 2.5 million?


----------



## Epi (Jul 21, 2006)

If the list were ordered with 'world attention' in mind, perhaps the list would be much different.

For instance, while Jerusalem is tiny compared to the many cities of the world, it's the one flashpoint which takes up a disproportionate amount of interest within the entire world. How many cities can claim as much press and world attention as Jerusalem?


===

With the way the world is changing, I wonder what will be the most important cities in the world in 25 years hence?

For instance, by that time, the oil sands in Canada will be so developed that Calgary (population projected to still be <2 million) will be extremely important, much more so than it is today.

As well by then, cities like Shanghai and Mumbai will also be of supreme importance, perhaps up into the upper tiers while places like Chicago may then seem to be seemingly less important. And of course if the German and French economies continue to be stagnant, perhaps Paris and Frankfurt may also slowly fall in the list.


----------

