# Which cities are MEGACITIES?



## Fallout (Sep 11, 2002)

Which cities in the world deserve to be called megacities in Your opinion?

One common definition is that megacity is a city with population over 10 million. If so the following would be megacities according to citypopulation.de (metropolitan areas included):

Name	English Name	Country	Population	Remarks
1	Tōkyō	Tokyo	Japan	34,100,000	incl. Yokohama, Kawasaki
2	Ciudad de México	Mexico City	Mexico	22,650,000	incl. Nezahualcóyotl, Ecatepec, Naucalpan
3	Seoul (Sŏul)	Seoul	South Korea	22,250,000	incl. Bucheon, Goyang, Incheon, Seongnam, Suweon
4	New York	New York	USA	21,850,000	incl. Newark, Paterson
5	São Paulo	Sao Paulo	Brazil	20,200,000	incl. Guarulhos
6	Mumbai	Bombay	India	19,700,000	incl. Kalyan, Thane, Ulhasnagar
7	Delhi	Delhi	India	19,500,000	incl. Faridabad, Ghaziabad
8	Los Angeles	Los Angeles	USA	17,950,000	incl. Riverside, Anaheim
9	Shanghai	Shanghai	China	17,900,000 
10	Jakarta	Jakarta	Indonesia	17,150,000	incl. Bekasi, Bogor, Depok, Tangerang
11	Ōsaka	Osaka	Japan	16,800,000	incl. Kobe, Kyoto
12	Kolkata	Calcutta	India	15,550,000	incl. Haora
13	Al-Qāhirah	Cairo	Egypt	15,450,000	incl. Al-Jizah, Shubra al-Khaymah
14	Manila	Manila	Philippines	14,850,000	incl. Kalookan, Quezon City
15	Karāchi	Karachi	Pakistan	14,100,000 
16	Moskva	Moscow	Russia	13,750,000 
17	Buenos Aires	Buenos Aires	Argentina	13,400,000	incl. San Justo, La Plata
18	Dhaka	Dacca	Bangladesh	13,100,000 
19	Rio de Janeiro	Rio de Janeiro	Brazil	12,100,000	incl. Nova Iguaçu, São Gonçalo
20	Beijing	Beijing	China	11,950,000 
21	London	London	Great Britain and Northern Ireland	11,950,000 
22	Tehrān	Tehran	Iran	11,800,000	incl. Karaj
23	İstanbul	Istanbul	Turkey	11,400,000 
24	Lagos	Lagos	Nigeria	11,000,000 
25	Shenzhen	Shenzhen	China	10,450,000 

And this is the list by UN statistical division (urban areas included):

Tokyo Japan 35,0
Mexico City Mexico 18,7
New York	United States of America 18,3
São Paulo Brazil 17,9
Mumbai (Bombay) India 17,4
Delhi India 14,1
Calcutta India 13,8
Buenos Aires Argentina 13,0
Shanghai China 12,8
Jakarta Indonesia 12,3
Los Angeles	United States of America 12,0
Dhaka Bangladesh 11,6
Osaka-Kobe Japan 11,2
Rio de Janeiro Brazil 11,2
Karachi Pakistan 11,1
Beijing China 10,8
Cairo Egypt 10,8
Moscow Russian Federation 10,5
Metro Manila Philippines 10,4
Lagos Nigeria 10,1

Would You agree wth this list? Do You thnk cities from least developed countries as Dacca and Lagos, being mostly slums without developed urban facilities should be in it. Or would You rather place there more developed world cities like Paris, London and Chicago, even if they do not fullfill the population criteria?


----------



## Minato ku (Aug 9, 2005)

you forgot Paris 11 millions inh


----------



## railway stick (Jan 16, 2005)

*Germany.*

I agree with this list, but why is the Ruhr-Area not mentioned in this publication? From Duisburg eastbound to Dortmund the Ruhrgebiet shows us one built-up megalopolis of nearly 12 million inhabitants. If you consider Düsseldorf and Köln (Cologne) on the Rhine as the southern wing of the Ruhrgebiet, this biggest metropolitan area of Germany has about 15 million inhabitants.


----------



## snot (May 12, 2004)

railway stick said:


> I agree with this list, but why is the Ruhr-Area not mentioned in this publication? From Duisburg eastbound to Dortmund the Ruhrgebiet shows us one built-up megalopolis of nearly 12 million inhabitants. If you consider Düsseldorf and Köln (Cologne) on the Rhine as the southern wing of the Ruhrgebiet, this biggest metropolitan area of Germany has about 15 million inhabitants.


I thought Ruhrgebiet has 7 million inhabitants.
No way there is a build up area of 12 million ppl. The *combined* metro area for Rhein/Ruhr is about 12 million. 
Comparing it with real megacities is comparing apples with pears.


----------



## kebabmonster (Jun 29, 2004)

The Rhine/Ruhr is not a megacity, rather a conurbation of seperate polycentric cities. It is huge as an urban sprawl, but no way is it a city.


----------



## unoh (Aug 13, 2005)

south Korea's population is 46milion.
and seoul's population is 10.23milion and seoul metro area(seoul, incheon. sungnam,goyang, yongin, anyang,ansan,gwancheon,bucheon,suwon etc) is 23milion.
It is nearly the half of s.korea's total population .
S.korea is centralized in capital area.


----------



## unoh (Aug 13, 2005)

*seoul metro*


----------



## 909 (Oct 22, 2003)

kebabmonster said:


> The Rhine/Ruhr is not a megacity, rather a conurbation of seperate polycentric cities. It is huge as an urban sprawl, but no way is it a city.


In that case, is Los Angeles a city?


----------



## railway stick (Jan 16, 2005)

kebabmonster said:


> The Rhine/Ruhr is not a megacity, rather a conurbation of seperate polycentric cities. It is huge as an urban sprawl, but no way is it a city.


Considering population densities the Ruhr Area is more over-populated than Los Angeles or New York City. For example, NYC has one core-area, called Manhattan and the rest is urban sprawl ( I visited Staten Island, Newark, Paterson, Queens, Bronx and Brooklyn) like you can see in the Ruhr Area.
Many Ruhr cities have cooperating public transport systems, educational institutions, there are huge shopping malls just inbetween some cities. And the so-called Siedlungs Verband Ruhrkohlebezirk is the supervisor of all planning items at the Ruhr Area. 
@ Snot: I used the current information of Dierckes Weltatlas. I consider German information about the Ruhr Area as being right.


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

London's metro area is defined as 18 million.


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

wjfox2002 said:


> London's metro area is defined as 18 million.



11 million is the continuous build up

the 18 million figure is for all the region surounding London that is directly dependent to the city.


----------



## coth (Oct 16, 2003)

so we start over here again?
btw, didn't it was Look who made tones of previous same threads?

Look, UN data is not with urban area. Their data is absolutely random. Somewhere metro regions, somewhere metro areas, somewhere agglomerations and somewhere just population within city limits, like London or Moscow.

citypopulation.de's data on agglomerations is most close to realities.


----------



## snot (May 12, 2004)

railway stick said:


> Many Ruhr cities have cooperating public transport systems, educational institutions, there are huge shopping malls just inbetween some cities. And the so-called Siedlungs Verband Ruhrkohlebezirk is the supervisor of all planning items at the Ruhr Area.
> @ Snot: I used the current information of Dierckes Weltatlas. I consider German information about the Ruhr Area as being right.


Are you talking about the Rurh area only?
In the official Ruhrgebiet live only 5,3 million people.
The rest of the Rurh/Rhein area has not the things you mentioned.


----------



## ReddAlert (Nov 4, 2004)

where is Chicago on this list?


----------



## slerz (Aug 12, 2005)

I agree...


----------



## coth (Oct 16, 2003)

Chicago is less than 10mln


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

London is most definitely a "mega city"! 

This is London's metro area which includes the commuter belt. I've worked with several people who travel into London from as far as East Anglia. Most of southern England revolves around this vast city:












http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/northamptonshire/3852867.stm

*London's growth 'swallows' south*

*London's expansion means Cambridge and even Northampton can be counted among its suburbs, claim academics.*

Norwich and Ipswich are also now part of Greater London because they lie within its immediate influence, says a Sheffield University report.

With London's commuter belt spreading, the study identifies a growing north-south economic divide.

The drift south is also leaving places like Corby in Northants with high levels of people unskilled workers.

The entire southern half of Britain - from as far north as Leicester to as far west as Plymouth - is now dominated by the Greater London metropolis where the most qualified people live, according to the Census Atlas report, which is based on the 2001 census.

The north - referred to as the Archipelago - is now defined as Wales and all counties north of Leicestershire, Lincolnshire and Gloucestershire.

The report claims London's suburbs take in Oxford and Cambridge Universities and the beaches of Devon and Cornwall at its extremities.

The report says London's commuter belt now extends up to the end of the M3 and M11 to Chepstow on the M4 and increasingly those who can, move south.

"The south is London and London is the south; and regional divisions in between are meaningless," it says.

The migration of skilled workers from the north to London between 1991 and 2001 has resulted in a divided Britain.

Nearly all of the northern cities are "slowly sinking" as they become less densely populated.

Populations fell in most major cities in the north - Manchester by 10%, Liverpool by 8% and Birmingham by 3%.

More than 1.7m jobs were created in the booming capital-based financial sector, between 1991 and 2001, accelerating growth in the south east.

Shadow Secretary for Local and Devolved Government Affairs, Caroline Spelman, said the report reinforced the need for economic growth to be spread more evenly across the country.

Minister for regeneration and social exclusion in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Yvette Cooper, said that the Government was taking steps to close the regional divide.


----------



## Fallout (Sep 11, 2002)

coth said:


> so we start over here again?
> btw, didn't it was Look who made tones of previous same threads?
> 
> Look, UN data is not with urban area. Their data is absolutely random. Somewhere metro regions, somewhere metro areas, somewhere agglomerations and somewhere just population within city limits, like London or Moscow.
> ...


Maybe few times i posted data about populations that i've found in the web, but my intention was just to share t with others who might be interested in it, I never said that these are my list, or that they reflect my view.

And the question of this thread is which cities do you consider megacities and what are the criteria for such classification, not if Moscow has 10 or 13 million people (that's why You don't like UN list, don't You? )


----------



## coth (Oct 16, 2003)

^Moscow has 10,5mln within city limits (1081 sq km). Satellite cities around, that could be considered as Moscow districts, has population in 2mln. Plus additional urban area in 2mln. Agglomeration is 14mln. Commuter belt covers area population in 21mln. 

And didn't it was L'Express that was wrote a day ago that Moscow with suburbs is 18mln?

Btw according to UN data London urban area is 7,6mln and Moscow proper is 10,7mln.


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

^ Nice avatar


----------



## JBOB (Aug 26, 2005)

True Mega Cities City Proper.. Seoul, Sao Palo, Moscow, etc..

Seoul

















Sao Palo


----------



## ReddAlert (Nov 4, 2004)

how about this for a Mega City? Add that to Chicago.


----------



## fierce_latino (Feb 21, 2005)

MEXICO CITY!


----------



## Metropolitan (Sep 21, 2004)

Paris should definitly be on that list. Not only it has a metro area of 11 million people, but it's also one of the densest city in the Western world (actually, only NYC beats it in matter of density).


----------



## Minato ku (Aug 9, 2005)

Yes Paris should be in list.


----------



## trentor69 (Dec 8, 2005)

_*Mexico City*_


----------



## thoju75 (Jul 22, 2004)

Paris isn't on the list?!?8(
It's a city with more than 11millions of inhabitants !!


----------



## A42251 (Sep 13, 2004)

Metropolitan said:


> Paris should definitly be on that list. Not only it has a metro area of 11 million people, but it's also one of the densest city in the Western world (actually, only NYC beats it in matter of density).


Paris is twice as dense as NYC. Its has over 50,000 pp/sm, compared to NY's 26,000 pp/sm.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

I don't think the Pearl River Delta cities (Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Hong Kong) constitute one megacity. People don't live in one and commute to the other. There's a border on the Hong Kong side, and there might still be a 2nd level border still around Shenzhen.


----------



## Handsome (May 2, 2005)

Shanghai is a megacity
Beijing is a megacity
Guangzhou is a megacity
Tianjin is a megacity
Shenzhen is a megacity


----------



## polako (Apr 7, 2005)

WOW!


----------



## kony (Jan 18, 2003)

polako said:


> WOW!


@ Moscow by night : DOUBLE WOW !


----------



## Siopao (Jun 22, 2005)

Metro Manila 14,000,000Metro


----------



## Big Duval (Sep 17, 2005)

coth said:


> Chicago is less than 10mln


Chicago should be there by now its been sitting on 9.6 for a min.You didn't add Milwaukee thats 12m


----------



## Azn_chi_boi (Mar 11, 2005)

I think before 2010, Chicago will enter the Mega-City Stage...

WOW @ Milwaukee and NYC!


----------



## computeringenieur (Dec 17, 2002)

The population of ISTANBUL(Istanbul City has 13 million) is 18-20 million. Every year there wil come 500 000 people.
Population growth of Istanbul is 7,4%.


----------



## kiku99 (Sep 17, 2002)

And also Bangkok, Thailand


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

computeringenieur said:


> The population of ISTANBUL(Istanbul City has 13 million) is *18-20 *million. Every year there wil come 500 000 people.
> Population growth of Istanbul is 7,4%.


That's a little on the optimistic side don't you think?


----------



## cello1974 (May 20, 2003)

I think, many cities >5 million can already be considered megacity, as in the 1970's...


----------



## crazyjoeda (Sep 10, 2004)

Population is only one way to define mega city, but it is an important factor. I think that power and global importance is also very important. 

Cities like London, Pairs, NYC, Tokyo, Hong Kong, LA and Seoul are the most elite mega cities.


----------



## cello1974 (May 20, 2003)

crazyjoeda said:


> Population is only one way to define mega city, but it is an important factor. I think that power and global importance is also very important.
> 
> Cities like London, Pairs, NYC, Tokyo, Hong Kong, LA and Seoul are the most elite mega cities.


Don't mess up Megacity (a demographic definition) with Global City (an economic term)!


----------



## Zaki (Apr 16, 2005)

Megacityisnt based on the economy of influence. Thats a global city. A maga city is aity with more than 10 million people and there are around 28 or 30 mega cities today.


----------



## wecky (Feb 21, 2005)

*LONDON*

-----


----------



## kyenan (Mar 22, 2003)

Handsome said:


> Shanghai is a megacity
> Beijing is a megacity
> Guangzhou is a megacity
> Tianjin is a megacity
> Shenzhen is a megacity


Shanghai is absolutely a megacity.

Beijing, I doubt.

Needless to say, other three are not megacities at all.


----------



## kyenan (Mar 22, 2003)

Handsome said:


> Shanghai is a megacity
> Beijing is a megacity
> Guangzhou is a megacity
> Tianjin is a megacity
> Shenzhen is a megacity


Shanghai is absolutely a megacity.

Beijing, I doubt.

Needless to say, other three are not megacities at all. 

In fact, GZ, TJ, and SZ are smaller than Nagoya (if Aichi Pref. is included). 

Is Nagoya a megacity?


----------



## Metropolitan (Sep 21, 2004)

wjfox2002 said:


> London is most definitely a "mega city"!
> 
> This is London's metro area which includes the commuter belt. I've worked with several people who travel into London from as far as East Anglia. Most of southern England revolves around this vast city:


lol... okay then the Netherlands, Belgium, Western Germany and Northern France forms actually only one single city of 40 million people...


----------



## mopc (Jan 31, 2005)

Tokyo, NY, Mexico City, São Paulo, Moscow, Shanghai, London, Paris and Seoul. These are the world´s megacities IMHO.


----------



## Fallout (Sep 11, 2002)

^^So what about Lagos and Cairo, or Osaka and Los Angeles?


----------



## macgyver (Apr 22, 2004)

Jakarta


----------



## null (Dec 11, 2002)

> In fact, GZ, TJ, and SZ are smaller than Nagoya (if Aichi Pref. is included).


are you kidding us?have you been to Nagoya?


----------



## cello1974 (May 20, 2003)

Look said:


> ^^So what about Lagos and Cairo, or Osaka and Los Angeles?


And Jakarta, Metro Manila, Karachi, Dhaka, Istanbul, Buenos Airres, Lima, Delhi, Calcutta, Beijing,...


----------



## PhillyPhilly90 (Aug 12, 2005)

Los Angeles is most definitely a mega-city. L.A. should deff. be there...besides it's metro is 17.5 million and its urban population is over 10 million...so yeah...(and its growing pretty fast for its size).


----------



## Fallout (Sep 11, 2002)

I would say that megacity should have not only mega- populaton but also a mega- amount of urban infrastructure - subways, airports, highways, skyscrapers, residential and communal buildings etc. That's why I hesitate if such cities as Lagos could be considered as megacities, while their infrastructure is well under the level of medium developed world city, and most of their population live in slums, without running water, electricity etc.

This would leave these cities as megacities:
London
Paris
Moscow
Istanbul
Shanghai
Beijing
Seoul
Tokyo
Osaka
New York
Los Angeles
Chicago
Mexico city
Sao Paulo
Rio de Janeiro
Buenes Aires

maybe also:
Mumbai
Delhi
Calcutta
Jakarta
Manila
Cairo

not:
Dhaka
Karachi
Lagos


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

London certainly deserves to be called a megacity. It has an urban population of 12 million,
is the world's busiest airport hub, is the most connected and international of all cities,
has one of the most extensive rail/subway networks, and is surrounded by the world's
largest ring-road (the M25).


----------



## paradyto (Aug 5, 2005)

Look said:


> I would say that megacity should have not only mega- populaton but also a mega- amount of urban infrastructure - subways, airports, highways, skyscrapers, residential and communal buildings etc. That's why I hesitate if such cities as Lagos could be considered as megacities, while their infrastructure is well under the level of medium developed world city, and most of their population live in slums, without running water, electricity etc.
> 
> This would leave these cities as megacities:
> London
> ...


Another Megacity: Jakarta in 2003 - 2004..


----------



## richardsonhomebuyers (May 6, 2005)

I think if you going to allow London to have hat large of a "metro" area land wise then I'm going to go ahead and say Chicago also include Milwaukee metro which adds another 1.5 million, Madison metro adds another 300k to 400k and the Rockford area which will add another 250k. When you add those cities and all the smaller ones in between that I didn't mention were sitting at well over 11 million.


----------



## Azn_chi_boi (Mar 11, 2005)

include South Bend, IN and New Buffalo, Michigan if you are going to add those cities.


----------



## lokinyc (Sep 17, 2002)

holy crap. that seoul aerial is mind numbing.


----------



## Mr Bricks (May 6, 2005)

That London pano is amazing! It looks like the southbank (at least southeast) mostly consists of suburbs, correct me if i´m wrong, but it looks that way.


----------



## PhillyPhilly90 (Aug 12, 2005)

Well actually that pic of London doesn't make it look like a suburb...to me it looks huge...juss look at the horizon I can't really see the end of tha London sprawl. Ain't London beautiful??


----------



## rocky (Apr 20, 2005)

Metropolitan said:


> Paris has 10.2 million people in its urban area.
> 
> According to the INSEE, the official statistics bureau in France, the population of Paris metropolitan area has been _calculated_ at 11.6 million people for 2005.
> 
> ...



lol i actualy found 11.6 myself using my own calculation methods !

:cheers:


----------



## Metropolitan (Sep 21, 2004)

london-b said:


> Why is Paris so much denser than London?


Check out the subway maps and you'll get a hint.  Paris subway is far less extensive than London's. As a result, appartment buildings have raised in all the neighbourhoods served by the metro.

This being said, Paris has always been very dense. It has reached its population peak in 1920, with 3 million inhabitants, making an average density of 34.400 inh./km² ! With the developments of cars and highways, the suburban life has reduced the population of the city of Paris to 2.1 million today. However, I personally think that the lack of extensiveness of public transportation networks in Paris have limited that suburbanization of the city. Of course, that's just an opinion. The only thing I know is that there's currently a densification in all suburbs served by the metro.


----------



## drfeelgood17 (Oct 5, 2005)

In other words according to INSEE, "Paris metropolitan area" is more or less the same thing as Ile-de-France region. 
This is what I found :
Paris only (75): 
2,142,80 (2005 estimate)
The whole of Ile-de-France: 11,264,000 (2005 estimate)


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

Paris only is like Manhatan.

Ile de France is the region, but most of the region's population is in the continuous build up area.

Understand?


----------



## drfeelgood17 (Oct 5, 2005)

^^ :hahaha: :hahaha: 
This is what I _understand_ from you're enthusiastic replies: in terms of population, the Paris urban area is, too all intents and purposes, practically the same as the population of Ile-de-France, there is no big difference, you've just proven my point - unless you want to count all the cows and pigs of the surrounding farms... :runaway:

HINT: I am not "confusing" Paris (city proper) with its "aire urbaine" or region. Relax.


----------



## drfeelgood17 (Oct 5, 2005)

Look said:


> I would say that megacity should have not only mega- populaton but also a mega- amount of urban infrastructure - subways, airports, highways, skyscrapers, residential and communal buildings etc. That's why I hesitate if such cities as Lagos could be considered as megacities, while their infrastructure is well under the level of medium developed world city, and most of their population live in slums, without running water, electricity etc.
> 
> This would leave these cities as megacities:
> London
> ...


----------



## Saigoneseguy (Mar 6, 2005)

According to GoogleEarth tm,I would consider those followings, in term of urban sprawl area:

San Francisco
Washington DC-Philadelphia-New York-Boston (big!)
Los Angeles-San Diego (big!)
Chicago-Milwaukee
London
Paris
Moscow (perhaps?)
New Delhi
Shanghai-Wuxi-Nanjing
Hong Kong-Shenzhen-Guangzhou
Seoul
Tokyo (big!)
Nagoya-Kyoto-Kobe (big!)
Sydney
Sao Paulo
Buenos Aires
Mexico city

Smaller:
Houston
Dallas
Detroit
Rheinland cities
Roma
Istanbul
Tehran
Karachi
Mumbai
Bangkok
Manila-Makati city
Beijing-Tianjin
Chengdu (perhaps?)
Taipei
Melbourne
Rio de Janeiro
....
maybe Lagos, Johanesburg, Cairo, Kuala Lumpur or Singapore....

Tel Aviv? Madrid? Athens? Perth? Miami? Chongqing?


----------



## drfeelgood17 (Oct 5, 2005)

rocky said:


> i thought the urban area of london was 8 and the metro 12 to 14.
> 
> urban area of paris is around 10
> 
> these numbers seems of since it was NYC metro or LA metro and not urban area which where supposed to have such numbers


This is because NYC and LA have very large "urban areas" - in NYC case, Washington and Boston are sometimes included - debatable, yes, but that's how they come up with such big numbers. If we did the same for Europe, the whole of Belguim and the Netherlands would be one big megacity!


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

drfeelgood17 said:


> ^^ :hahaha: :hahaha:
> This is what I _understand_ from you're enthusiastic replies: in terms of population, the Paris urban area is, too all intents and purposes, practically the same as the population of Ile-de-France, there is no big difference, you've just proven my point - unless you want to count all the cows and pigs of the surrounding farms... :runaway:
> 
> HINT: I am not "confusing" Paris (city proper) with its "aire urbaine" or region. Relax.



THis is what you said



> Exactly...so they should use the same criteria for all cities when compiling such lists, and be consistent. For example, when you say Paris's population is 10m+, you are clearly referring to Ile-de-France, which includes farmland and forests, hardly 100% urban. Paris "Intra-muros" has a population of only around 2m. If we are to include regions for all major cities of the world, in that case, the London urban area would be much more than 10m. The article I quoted makes this clear.


The 18 million figure (for which you must be refering too) for London, contains the metro area, the difference with the 12 million figure, is that they took into account the surounding countryside and towns.

cows, pigs and farms if you prefer.

All in all, the London urban area is only slightly bigger than Paris'


----------



## drfeelgood17 (Oct 5, 2005)

wjfox2002 said:


> If you include the metro area then yes. The urban population is about 12m though.


18m, according to the GLA.


----------



## London (Jun 12, 2005)

It MUST be somewhere around 18 million for London to ever be as competitive as it is to NY, which has 22million in metro?


----------



## london-b (Jul 31, 2004)

virtual said:


> You are completly right, I'm sorry, I have no idea why I wrote Toronto


lol, I thought something was wrong but couldn't be botherd to bring it up.


----------



## drfeelgood17 (Oct 5, 2005)

London said:


> It MUST be somewhere around 18 million for London to ever be as competitive as it is to NY, which has 22million in metro?


It would make more sense, wouldn't it?


----------



## london-b (Jul 31, 2004)

drfeelgood17 said:


> 18m, according to the GLA.


That is one metro figure! Not urban population.


----------



## drfeelgood17 (Oct 5, 2005)

^^ yes, I meant urban LOL


----------



## Saigoneseguy (Mar 6, 2005)

And Dhaka Jakarta and Frankfurt are not that big!!!



> Originally posted by *Xantarx*
> Poverty in Zurich or Calgary is far richer than upper-middle class in Bangkok or Jakarta


Very doubt that, common stereotype thou.


----------



## paradyto (Aug 5, 2005)

The Mega Kuningan ...


----------



## Metropolitan (Sep 21, 2004)

virtual said:


> All in all, the London urban area is only slightly bigger than Paris'


Paris urban area is actually _bigger_ than London urban area. Paris is indeed the largest urban area in the EU. There is about 8.5 million people in London urban area compared with slightly more than 10 million people in Paris urban area. 

However, there's an explanation for this. The thing is that London has a green belt surrounding it which is limiting the size of its urban area. Of course, economically speaking, London doesn't stop at the green belt, and considering the population density of the UK's South East, there's no doubt London has a larger metropolitan area than Paris.

Here is a map of Paris urban area and metro area according to the INSEE :








The figures in black are the code names of administrative departments. And here's a table giving you all the detailed population figures about things represented on that map :








Even without counting its metropolitan area, just in counting its urban area, Paris' population exceeds 10 million people. This is not the case of London by the way... because of the green belt limiting the size of its urban area.


----------



## drfeelgood17 (Oct 5, 2005)

^^ What "limits" London's population is politics not geography or green belts (by the way, the red area on your map also contains many "green belts". And don't forget, the UK uses 50 metres for urban areas, as opposed to the 200 metres used in France. This is why the UK is much stricter in its definition of continuous urban areas. Things would be very different if we used the same system). Also, when you say London's population is under 10m, you are of course referring to Greater London only (7.5m)- which you seem to be saying, is the equivalent of your aire urbaine - which clearly, is not the same thing.


----------



## Metropolitan (Sep 21, 2004)

drfeelgood17 said:


> ^^ What "limits" London's population is politics not geography or green belts (by the way, the red area on your map also contains many "green belts". And don't forget, the UK uses 50 metres for urban areas, as opposed to the 200 metres used in France. This is why the UK is much stricter in its definition of continuous urban areas. Things would be very different if we used the same system).


Nope... there's no green belt in Paris. That's why there is such a thin difference between the urban area and the metro area. There are indeed many parks and forests, but they never form a belt breaking the continuity of the urbanization.

By the way, I doubt the 200m vs 50m thing is really an issue as it exists European statistics using only the 200m criteria, including for British cities, and figures aren't much different.



> Also, when you say London's population is under 10m, you are of course referring to Greater London only (7.5m)- which you seem to be saying, is the equivalent of your aire urbaine - which clearly, is not the same thing.


Nope. The "aire urbaine" in French is the metropolitan area in English. The French equivalent of the urban area is the "unité urbaine" (litteraly translated into "urban unit").

And by London urban area, I'm referring to inside the green belt, which is a larger area than the Greater London. London urban area is about 8.5 million people.

Actually, as urban areas are based on the "physical" shape of the city, it's easier to build up a good comparison at the European scale in using the exact same criteria no matter the country. That's not possible yet with metropolitan areas, as it's more complicate to calculate.

You can find here a list of the largest urban areas in Western Europe. That list only use the 200m criteria for ALL cities in Western Europe, no matter the country.

Now this being said. The urban area doesn't have any particular interests (outside proving to Brits the 10 million figure for Paris isn't counting cows). As Justme will certainly point out if he reads this thread, there's no economical or demographical relevancy in this. The metropolitan areas are a lot more significant from this point of view as they are based on employment.

Hence, saying Paris urban area is the largest in Western Europe actually don't prove anything. It's nothing else than a simple statistical curiosity.


----------



## Manuel (Sep 11, 2002)

Metropolitan said:


> Actually, as urban areas are based on the "physical" shape of the city, it's easier to build up a good comparison at the European scale in using the exact same criteria no matter the country. That's not possible yet with metropolitan areas, as it's more complicate to calculate.


I dont think that metro areas are more difficult to calculate. Some research projects such as GEMACA have used a systematic methodology to evaluate polarised urban region, though only dealing with the biggest in Europe (Randstad, London, Paris, Milan...). other researchers have also used moving threshold to evaluate the size of metro areas.

------------

More recently, the debate has shifted in the face of rapidly emerging polycentric regions in Europe. Peter Hall and Kathy¨Pain will publish the full results of their work in a book in june this year. 
http://shop.earthscan.co.uk/ProductDetails/mcs/productID/712/groupID/3/categoryID/15/v/

Metro areas as they are defined now may turn obsolete. Two cases, Randstad and the South East of England are emerging as *Mega city regions* where the core is still the engine of the functional region but the other urban centres around that have achieved a critical mass are becoming secondary regional engines in their own right. Cores communicate and draw intense relationships materialised by huge flows of people, data and goods. The latest statistical evidences show that the extension of the area polarised by london is not growing any more, reducing in places (in the west), even if it continues to gain population and even if strong employment growth have been recorded in Greater London during the last 15 years.

London is the first monocentric urban area in Europe that has achieved such a degree of polycentricity despite a radial orientated transport infrastructure. This a landmark research with implications on urban governance.


----------



## Mr Bricks (May 6, 2005)

I´m very confused right now, what´s the difference between "urban area" and "metropolitan area"?


----------



## coth (Oct 16, 2003)

SuomiPoika said:


> I´m very confused right now, what´s the difference between "urban area" and "metropolitan area"?


urban area is agglomeration. city and built-up urbanized area around it.
metropolitan area is more theorical than phisical. based on theorical economical connections, trasportation connections etc

first is more situable for european cities.


----------



## drfeelgood17 (Oct 5, 2005)

^^Just out of curiosity, what do you think is the urban area population of Moscow? I've seen that on some lists its about 13m - do you think this is accurate, or do you believe it should be more than this?


----------



## Cyril (Sep 11, 2002)

@ Manuel
Thx for the news and for the introduction to this new Mega city region concept kay:


----------



## Metropolitan (Sep 21, 2004)

SuomiPoika said:


> I´m very confused right now, what´s the difference between "urban area" and "metropolitan area"?


"Urban area" is a geographic description of cities. It measures the size of cities according to the population living in the continuous built-up area.

"Metropolitan area" is an economical description of cities. It measures the economical connections between cities through exchanges between residents and employment. Statistically speaking, if more than 50% of people living in the city have a job which is inside the metropolitan area, then it is part of the metropolitan area.

To sum it up, urban areas are defined according to geographic criterias (the countinuous built-up area). Metropolitan areas on the other side are defined according to economical criterias (employment).


----------



## coth (Oct 16, 2003)

drfeelgood17 said:


> ^^Just out of curiosity, what do you think is the urban area population of Moscow? I've seen that on some lists its about 13m - do you think this is accurate, or do you believe it should be more than this?


Agglomeration of Moscow is close to 14mln.


----------



## drfeelgood17 (Oct 5, 2005)

hossoso said:


> Seoul is number three on the first list and not even in the top twenty of the second?
> I have lived in four of the cities that makes these lists (NY, BA, LA, and Seoul) and I am quite sure that Seoul should at least be in the top ten of any list, no matter how you count population.


That's because the list you're referring to is the UN's, which, to be honest, is not the most reliable one, as it's very inconsistent: 

And this is the list by UN statistical division (urban areas included):

Tokyo Japan 35,0
Mexico City Mexico 18,7
New York United States of America 18,3
São Paulo Brazil 17,9
Mumbai (Bombay) India 17,4
Delhi India 14,1
Calcutta India 13,8
Buenos Aires Argentina 13,0
Shanghai China 12,8
Jakarta Indonesia 12,3
Los Angeles United States of America 12,0
Dhaka Bangladesh 11,6
Osaka-Kobe Japan 11,2
Rio de Janeiro Brazil 11,2
Karachi Pakistan 11,1
Beijing China 10,8
Cairo Egypt 10,8
Moscow, Russian Federation 10.5
*Metro Manila Philippines 10,4*[/B]
Lagos Nigeria 10,1

I noticed one more error: Metro Manila surely has more than 10m as its *urban area* population. Statisticians are often misled by the name of Metro Manila. It is NOT the metropolitan area of Manila nor its urban area. Metro Manila is equivalent to Greater London or NYC proper (minus all the suburbs). This terminology was introduced in 1975, simply to distinguish Manila city (equivalent to say, Westminster or Manhattan) from greater Manila. It has nothing to do whatsoever with "metropolitan area" as defined by Wikipedia. The urban and metro areas of Manila are in fact much larger than what is included in the UN's figure - which was simply copied from the Philippine census count for "Metro Manila" without anyone bothering to analyse it. The real figure is probably close to 16m. 
I wouldn't be surprised if they treated Seoul's figures in the same way....


----------



## Bikaner (Jan 11, 2005)

A megacity is a city with population of more than 10 million and nothing else. 
Mumbai, New Delhi and Kolkata (Calcutta) definitely qualify.


----------



## spotila (Oct 29, 2004)

MSN Messenger is temporarily unable to play the wink you sent. Please try again later.


----------



## Maverick (Nov 26, 2005)

saigon_monsooner said:


> According to GoogleEarth tm,I would consider those followings, in term of urban sprawl area:
> 
> San Francisco
> Washington DC-Philadelphia-New York-Boston (big!)
> ...


Sorry but you have to be having a laugh including Houston in that list. It's a medium sized city and doesn't deserve to be there. For comparison, I'll compare it to Manchester, which is one of the two cities I live in.

Houston (a city):
Area: 1,558.4km²
Urban population: 2,012,626
Density: 1,301.8/km²

Greater Manchester (technically not a city, but it is in reality):
Area: 1,276 km²
Urban population: 2,539,100
Density: 1,990/km²

If Houston is a "megacity" then so are Manchester and Birmingham, meaning the UK would have three. Including Houston is a ridiculous claim.


----------



## pricemazda (Feb 14, 2004)

@Metropolitan where are you getting your London stats, you seem to be justing making them up while only providing references for Paris. 

Greater London as defined by its political boundary is 8 million. The continuous urban area is 12 million, its Metro area is 18 million. 

But on density issues people should remember that 30% of the Greater London area is made up of open space.


----------



## drfeelgood17 (Oct 5, 2005)

^^Pricemazda, I think he (or she??, sorry I'm new to this thread) got them from the 2000 Census figures which tell us that London's urban area population is around 8.5m (not much bigger than Greater London's). However, the Census website does admit that this is not a "definitive" measure of urban area, and that other such measures exist, which could yield a very different figure. Also the UK Census uses 50 metres of continuous build-up as a measure, while most other EU countries like France use 200 metres, so their criteria for urban areas is less strict and they have more leeway. In most other sources I've seen 12 or even 13m is given as London's urban population. The GLA has 18m as London's metropolitan population. Since Metropolitan only gave us the map of the Paris urban area it's difficult to make any comparisons with London's. Also, as Metropolitan was saying, even if Paris's urban area is bigger, London's Metropolitan LOL area is certainly bigger, whatever measure you use. Anyway, if you look at the bigger picture, I think these comparisons are pretty much meaningless. London and Paris might be the biggest cities in Europe, but worldwide, they often don't even make it to the Top 10 lists.


----------



## pricemazda (Feb 14, 2004)

Well this depends on what measure you use, the US figures use very broad criteria and if the same criteria were to be used in Europe cities would include for example almost the whole of The Netherlands. 

So doing these comparisons is pretty pointless.


----------



## Cyril (Sep 11, 2002)

^^ sure but thanks to its metro area 18 million figure, London can boast being one of the top 5 largest cities in the world, which Paris just cannot.


----------



## pricemazda (Feb 14, 2004)

Nick Taylor is the man to ask about these figures, he has data on London using the French INSEE methods and they still put London ahead of Paris. 

London is the largest city in the EU and it can certainly be argued between London and Moscow to the biggest city in Europe.

For Istanbul you can only really include the european side for being in europe.


----------



## GNU (Nov 26, 2004)

pricemazda said:


> Nick Taylor is the man to ask about these figures, he has data on London using the French INSEE methods and they still put London ahead of Paris.
> 
> London is the largest city in the EU and it can certainly be argued between London and Moscow to the biggest city in Europe.
> 
> For Istanbul you can only really include the european side for being in europe.


Paris is bigger than London.thats for sure.
The city population of Paris is around 10 million.
2nd biggest would be Moscow,then London and then Berlin.

Theoratically, Rhein-Rhur is the biggest in Europe with atleast 16 million in city term boundaries.  

And if Instanbul would be included it would be the biggest of course with more than 16 million


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

Not quite.

London is the largest metro area in Europe. It also has a larger urban population then Paris (if Paris is 10 million, London is 12 million). Moscow is the largest city (administrative boundaries).
Istanbul doesn't play because part of it is in Asia and many people live in the gecekundu's.
Rhein-Ruhr has nowhere near 16 million city residents, that's almost the entire population of NRW. It's metro however is 16 million or something.

Why do people keep confusing metro, urban and city figures. It's not that hard really. The only thing that is debatable is the method to calculate urban or metro areas. But with all methods London remains the largest.


----------



## coth (Oct 16, 2003)

urban area of moscow is close to 14mln.

And London, SHiRO, is arguably largest metro area in Europe.


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

If by "arguably" you mean it is, then yes...


----------



## capslock (Oct 9, 2002)

Checker said:


> To make athing clear:
> 
> London city population: 7.5million
> Paris city population: around 10million
> ...


Still not quite right.... there was a thread on this before that Justme took the lead on which very thoroughly went through the different definitions used in different countries and then compared like with like for all European cities.

Your city populations look about right (if you call them urban populations), although some put London closer to 8 million these days. Paris does come out bigger on this measure due to the structure of the city, as many have already said up-thread.

You've then taken London's urban (or perhaps administrative) area and called it the metro area. London's metro area is I believe about 16 / 17 million compared to Paris's 15million or so - and no, that doesn't include Brighton.

The thread I talked about just now also looked at taking the equibalent of the US's CMSA population count and there were arguments that you could stretch London's sphere of influence out further to the point where it measured 21 million or so, but to me this was always more of an academic exercise and mainly to put to bed the believe that all American cities were SO much larger than European.

The thing to remember with all of these is that the old model of a city within it's walls surrounded by fields doesn't work any more. You cannot compare places like the Ruhr with the Randstad with London just on their populations alone, without understanding the very different urban structures that underpin them. Then again there are cultural issues too. In the UK, Manchester and Liverpool are very close to physically merging - does that mean they feel like one city? Quite the opposite.


----------



## coth (Oct 16, 2003)

SHiRO said:


> Moscow city is over 10 million but it's metro can't be between 17 and 18 million, because Moscow plus Moscow Oblast is below 17 million. Moscow Oblast covers an area of 85,000 sq km, which is more than two times the size of the Netherlands and nearly four times the size of the London metro. Beyond that area is not commutable to the extend it ads to the metro area in ANY of the known methods.


:|

1. Moscow province is 47thous sq km. But it doesn't matter. Most of settlements concentrated along the railways. Most of lands between railways especially on outskirts of provice just big forests.
2. City of Moscow and Moscow province making much over 17mln, not below - 10,5 city and 7,1 is province of registered inhabitants. Plues estimately 4-4,5mln of non registered inhabitants. Just a bureaucracy. But I don't include them to my figures.
3. All lines of commuter networks of Moscow going ahead of province border, up to Tver', Aleksandrov, Bolakirevo, Vladimir, Ryazan', Pavelets, Tula, Kaluga, Vyaz'ma etc. Same goes to buses.


----------



## GNU (Nov 26, 2004)

eddied said:


> Still not quite right.... there was a thread on this before that Justme took the lead on which very thoroughly went through the different definitions used in different countries and then compared like with like for all European cities.
> 
> Your city populations look about right (if you call them urban populations), although some put London closer to 8 million these days. Paris does come out bigger on this measure due to the structure of the city, as many have already said up-thread.
> 
> ...



I aggree with everything you said there.
Nevertheless the reason why RheinRhur cant be compared to cities like Paris or London results from the fact that its a big agglomeration of cities that are independent from each other.
Nevertheless you would probably have around 10 million people within an hours underground drive.
Its just that in Germany city population are being counted differently.
The same thing applies to France (Paris officially having 2.1 million) or for example Japan (Tokyo officially having around 7 million whereas the real population is around 20 to 30 million)
Frankfurt would be another example etc etc.

Just to give you an example:
Residents in a rheinRhur city wouldnt stay in their city primarily.
Many residents are actually going to Essen (population 600.000) just to do their daily shopping.
Thats why the city is dubbed the shopping city.
Its basically just full with stores and serves as a gigantic shopping centre for the whole region.


----------



## GM (Feb 29, 2004)

CaféTasse said:


> a real kindergarten...
> 
> well, anyway the smallest official city on earth in in Belgium : Durbuy with 350 inhabitants (and it is absolutely beautiful; look at www.durbuy.be + go and visit it)


Well, there are thousands and thousands cities (communes) in France which have a lot less than 350 inhabitants.
There are 36,000 communes in France (which represent half of the total number of municipalities in Europe), and some of them have only... 0 inhabitant !


----------



## Cyril (Sep 11, 2002)

Paris has certainly NOT 15 million people in its metro area ! It's 11 to 13 million depending on what we count.
Well this thread is once again a Moscow vs. London vs. Paris vs. Rhur... battle.
Almost every week such a thread is created on this forum, it's a bit boring eventually.
Exciting but recurrent...


----------



## snot (May 12, 2004)

GM said:


> Well, there are thousands and thousands cities (communes) in France which have a lot less than 350 inhabitants.
> There are 36,000 communes in France (which represent half of the total number of municipalities in Europe), and some of them have only... 0 inhabitant !


of course there are thousands of small communes in france, but those are no cities, Durbuy is officially a *city* not just a municipality that's the point.
Of course a 'city' is just a municipality that have the right to call his self city.
This dates from the middle ages when a city got 'city rights'.


----------



## Manuel (Sep 11, 2002)

Phil said:


> Is central London just the city of London ? Because these pictures really focus on a few square miles, isn't there about 120 sm in inner london ? and isn't Inner London the best thing to compare to Paris ?
> The thing is that the urban density London has compares to Paris, but Paris is denser and more urban on a bigger area.
> Remember that the city of Paris has not only a higher population density than inner London, but also a higher office density.
> That's just the way the 2 cities are...


No Phil, Central London has a higher job density than Central Paris.
As for defining Central London. Physically it's what's inside the inner ring road and statistically it's Camden, Westminster and the City (excluding the south bank of the Thames which is not very much integrated to the CBD anyway...).
That's around 500 000ppl and 1.2-1.5m jobs for a tiny area, smaller than Paris intra muros.


----------



## Manuel (Sep 11, 2002)

rocky said:


> the 18 mln for london is a fantasmatic number said by a lunatic mayor..
> 
> well have to wait a few years for official statement= proof. until now i wont believe this figure.
> if you include so many towns we could include for paris , rouen (500000), orleans (300000),compiegne creil (100000)


There have been endless threads on this. You should have read them. Some ppl provide accurate information here but cant post them constantly. Check posts of Justme who took the time to ask ppl who know those things and gathered very precise data in an unbiased way.


----------



## Küsel (Sep 16, 2004)

There should be really a section about "London Metro" it's getting fucking boring this endless discussion that distroys whole threads since years


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

coth said:



> :|
> 
> 1. Moscow province is 47thous sq km. But it doesn't matter. Most of settlements concentrated along the railways. Most of lands between railways especially on outskirts of provice just big forests.
> 2. City of Moscow and Moscow province making much over 17mln, not below - 10,5 city and 7,1 is province of registered inhabitants. Plues estimately 4-4,5mln of non registered inhabitants. Just a bureaucracy. But I don't include them to my figures.
> 3. All lines of commuter networks of Moscow going ahead of province border, up to Tver', Aleksandrov, Bolakirevo, Vladimir, Ryazan', Pavelets, Tula, Kaluga, Vyaz'ma etc. Same goes to buses.


I was confused over the 47,000 km (confused with Chongqing). Still it is an area larger then the NL and twice as large as the London metro.

5 million unregistered inhabitants? You gotta be kidding me...Common even to you that must sound as absolute bollocks.

Anyway, people don't commute 200 km.


----------



## coth (Oct 16, 2003)

SHiRO said:


> I was confused over the 47,000 km (confused with Chongqing). Still it is an area larger then the NL and twice as large as the London metro.
> 
> 5 million unregistered inhabitants? You gotta be kidding me...Common even to you that must sound as absolute bollocks.
> 
> Anyway, people don't commute 200 km.


1. Still London metro area is over 18 times larger then Tricity metro. Area is not an indicator.

2. In entire province. Nothing strange in those figures. Moscow is a center of EE migration routes.
first article says about 1,5-3mln estimate for city of moscow, based on ministry estimates
second and third about 1-1,5mln estimate for city of moscow, based on moscow authorities estimates
http://english.mn.ru/english/issue.php?2002-16-16
http://businesspress.ru/newspaper/article_mId_3_aId_359000.html
http://www.prime-tass.ru/news/show.asp?id=235&ct=interviews

nationalists says about 2-3mln illegals
http://www.regnum.ru/news/529936.html

and that is only moscow, while most of them lives outside of city in province

russia plans to legalize 1mln illegals soon btw.

3. Not much, but some do. But again doesn't matter. It's official commuter network. I have said once. My suburban house is in 180km from my home in Moscow. Just 5km to Tver'. About 1/3 of people in towns there are Muscovites. Another 1/2 are Tverians and other people from Moscow province cities, like Klin. The city is in 95km from Kremlin by narrow, in 10 km from Solnechnogorsk (city under City of Moscow administration) and in 35km from City of Moscow border.


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

You have no clue how metro's are calculated otherwise you wouldn't be making these claims. Just because Muscovites have suburban (second) homes doesn't make the population of that entire area which is 200 km away, ad to Moscow's metro.


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

Jesus, what an annoying thread!

All of these stats are pointless anyway... I mean, whichever way you look at it, London rightfully deserves to be called a "megacity".

You only have to look at the picture below to realise why (this only shows a small part of the centre). London is a simply vast city,
with a massive urban population, incredibly extensive transport and infrastructure, gigantic metro area covering most of southern
England, huge amount of international connections, and simply enormous cultural/political/financial influence over the world:-


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

Chuck Norris says London is a megacity. End of story.


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

^ Exactly!!


----------



## spyguy (Apr 16, 2005)

But how does Martha feel? The BBC Entertainment section?


----------



## coth (Oct 16, 2003)

SHiRO said:


> You have no clue how metro's are calculated otherwise you wouldn't be making these claims. Just because Muscovites have suburban (second) homes doesn't make the population of that entire area which is 200 km away, ad to Moscow's metro.


Since you claiming that metro area is area around the city in 27,5thous sq km because it is london's one - it looks like you have no clue how mtero area is calculating.

i repeat you again. take a commuter belt standard and do calculation of all discricts youself if you so want. and don't forget to present us your work.



@wj
this photo was posted 3 times in this thread

i just post moscow's picture yet again as well


Moscow (48km from left to right). 24 thousand highrises within City of Moscow only plus thousands of more in satellite cities.










without modern districts (28km from top to bottom). this is about end of 80's.


----------



## drfeelgood17 (Oct 5, 2005)

:lol: 
I thought city vs city was dead long ago...it seems alive & well in this thread!


----------



## drfeelgood17 (Oct 5, 2005)

polako said:


> Whoever did the population figures of the urbanized areas at the UN had to be recovering from a three day meth bender putting Tokyo's urbanized area population at 35 million. Its urbanized population as of 2005 was 26.8 million. They should seriously get into rehab, it would help them avoid such obvious mistakes.


 :rofl: 
I almost agree with there Polako - it would be interesting to know how they came up with 35m!


----------



## Zaki (Apr 16, 2005)

Wow, i guess the spirit of city vs city will never die. Some how this has turned from which are the mega cities to which is the biggest city in Europe. And this too without Istanbul which is a clear candidate excluded.


----------



## Klas (May 16, 2005)

*@all*

mmh megacities interesting .So let me say there a following hierarchy of mega cites 

over 10 million : megacities :

over 20 million Hyper or meta cities

and over 30 million gigacities

so the hierarchy must be:

1.) Tokyo 33 mln (the only gigacity worldwide )

2.) NYC Mexico city , Delhi Sao Paulo over 20 milllion

3.) LA ,Buenos aires , rio, London , Paris ,Moscow ,The rhine ruhr (when it becomes an single city) ,lima,Mumbai ,manila ,osaka , Jakrta , Dakka, Karachi , Bejing , Shenzen, Tijan , Coplcatta and evtl. Chicago ...with over 10 millions 

So THAT Cities all over the world are Megacities okay?! or not! 

In the future there can be Bangalore , Pune , Hong Konk nad dubai bogota to become megacities but not befor 2020!

And Tokyo can catch the 40 milloioon mark so LA NYC and Sao Paulo can catch the 30 Million by 2050!


----------



## oliver999 (Aug 4, 2006)

i have no idea about metro eara, seems no chinese city has metro eara,chinese city is consists of city center and surburb, then rural eara . i dont know why.


----------



## Küsel (Sep 16, 2004)

Digging out old threads is common since the search function is back as it seems...

I just don't see where a discussion like that should lead to. Megacities ARE clearly defined Metro areas with more than 10 mio inhabitants (night pop), Global Cities are defined by their worldwide and interregional importance. 

No one would come to open a thread and even let it last longer than 200 posts about what are now really the first four digits of PI hno:


----------

