# World's Largest Metros In 2005



## ChinaboyUSA (May 10, 2005)

China gets the biggest
Beijing-Tianjin Bohai Urban Belt
Shanghai -Nanjing - Hangzhou Yangtze River Delta Urban Belt
and Hong Kong -Shenzhen - Guangzhou Pearl River Delta Belt


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

London_2006 said:


> 27000sq km isn't 16777sq mi, you have just taken the 27000 figure and multiplied it by 0.61 to get the figure in miles.
> 
> 1 sq kilometer = 0.386102159 sq miles
> 
> So 27000sq km is 10474sq mi.


Correct... I had an error in my calculation. Nonetheless, 10,400 sq. miles is an area that's roughly 100 miles long by 100 miles wide. My earlier point still holds true.


----------



## polako (Apr 7, 2005)

Even if you added all that land and population to London's metro you wouldn't prove anything. Face it Londoners, NYC beats your city in every single category no matter how you manipulate the data, just like Tokyo beats NYC.


----------



## London_2006 (Feb 9, 2003)

polako said:


> Even if you added all that land and population to London's metro you wouldn't prove anything. Face it Londoners, NYC beats your city in every single category no matter how you manipulate the data, just like Tokyo beats NYC.


Just like randomly adding more land area to NYC so it's the same size as Greater London proves nothing then. NYC doesn't beat London in every categroy, that's just laughable.


----------



## polako (Apr 7, 2005)

^ Show me one category in which London beats NYC.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

London_2006 said:


> Just like randomly adding more land area to NYC so it's the same size as Greater London proves nothing then. NYC doesn't beat London in every categroy, that's just laughable.


Not true... As I mentioned, if you consider an area around NYC that, like Greater London, is 600 sq miles, there would be about 13M people in that area, which is double the number that is within the 600 sq miles encompassed by greater London. There are millions of people in NJ immediately on the other side of the Hudson River.

NY is a much bigger city than London is. No one is suggesting that that makes it better. Tokyo is clearly bigger than NY, yet I prefer NY. London is bigger than Paris, yet I prefer Paris. Sao Paulo is much bigger than Madrid, yet no one is going to claim that it's a better city than Madrid is.


----------



## Bombay Boy (May 6, 2005)

get a room you two


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

:cheers1:


Bombay Boy said:


> get a room you two


----------



## nick_taylor (Mar 7, 2003)

A42251 said:


> ^Yeah, but NYC takes up half as much land as greater London, meaning it has about twice the population density


Well if your going to argue on about population density, then maybe you should look to the City of Paris....

City of Paris: 24,448/km²
New York City: 10,292/km²


I would very much enjoy it if MikeHunt could reply to my post (#35) which addressed your concerns with New York City being smaller (area wise), when the City of Paris is even smaller than New York City which kinda cripples your argument.






polako said:


> Show me one category in which London beats NYC.


Sports + stadia, history, architecture, politics, transport (light + heavy rail + aviation), music + film production, diversity (foreign born community count), museums, theatre, markets, parks + open spaces, schools + universities, tourist attractions... Should I continue?


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

Take this to the NYC vs. London thread, fellas! This isn't the place.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

nick-taylor said:


> The figure shown in post #1 for London is I suspect for the urban area. The actual metropolitan area population figure for London set by the Greater London Authority is 18mn.
> 
> But MikeHunt, I assume then that if Greater London isn't comparable to New York City, then technically New York City can't be compared to the City of Paris and that the only true part of New York City is Manhattan?
> 
> ...


The figure shown is for Greater London which has a very clear definition as set forth above. With respect to population densities, NYC's is more than double Greater London's. Bexley and Bromley are suburban. They look like Westchester or Bergen County. There is absolutely nothing suburban about Brooklyn. It is extremely dense and urban.

PS: Manhattan is denser than Paris.

From wikipedia.com:

At the 1999 French census the population density in the city of Paris was 20,164 inh. per km² (52,225 inh. per sq. mile). Excluding the outlying parks of Bois de Boulogne and Bois de Vincennes, the density in the city was actually 24,448 inh. per km² (63,321 inh. per sq. mile). As a matter of comparison, the density in Manhattan at the 2000 US census was 25,846 inh. per km² (66,940 inh. per sq. mile), and the density in Inner London at the 2001 UK census was 8,663 inh. per km² (22,438 inh. per sq. mile).

The population density in the city of Paris is very high compared to most western cities, which are rarely as crowded as Paris (except for Manhattan).


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

nick-taylor said:


> ...sports... architecture, politics, transport (light + heavy rail + aviation), music + film production, diversity (foreign born community count), museums, theatre, markets, parks + open spaces, schools + universities, tourist attractions... Should I continue?


Are you deranged?


----------



## nick_taylor (Mar 7, 2003)

MikeHunt said:


> The figure shown is for Greater London which has a very clear definition as set forth above. With respect to population densities, NYC's is more than double Greater London's. Bexley and Bromley are suburban. They look like Westchester or Bergen County. There is absolutely nothing suburban about Brooklyn. It is extremely dense and urban.
> 
> PS: Manhattan is denser than Paris.
> 
> ...


But I still don't get what your point is here. If you don't agree with the city boundaries of New York or London, write off to the appropiate authorities. Then again what exact authority do you have to state where a city ends and a city finishes? Compare to the City of Paris only Manhattan is comparable in New York, so you could argue that the other 4 boroughs of New York City are suburban when compared to the actual City of Paris.

Either way, New York is currently larger by city proper, urban and metropolitan area, although considering London is now absorbing at a higher rate it will within the next few years overtake New York in the city proper category.





MieHunt said:


> Are you deranged?


As deranged as you claiming that you know the proper definition of a city boundary? You would be pushed to argue that New York for example has better architecture or history than London though.


----------



## Jose Luis (Jun 15, 2004)

London VS NYC...
Stop it, that topic is endless and pretty rubbish.
Everyone here is so tires of that shit


----------



## scguy (Sep 11, 2002)

Where is Sydney on this list??? Did I miss it or was it ommited?


----------



## JC (Oct 8, 2004)

48 Kuala Lumpur Malaysia 6,140,000

really?


----------



## 29A (Jan 19, 2005)

19 mil for Mumbai is pretty accurate. However, the real figures are UNDERESTIMATED instead of overestimated in this case


----------



## 29A (Jan 19, 2005)

MUM beats all others in terms of population density as well. the size is 2/3 the size of NYC.


----------



## marathon (Jun 6, 2004)

nick-taylor said:


> Well if your going to argue on about population density, then maybe you should look to the City of Paris....
> 
> City of Paris: 24,448/km²
> New York City: 10,292/km²


If you're going to compare the "City of Paris" (which amounts to the department of Paris), the comparison needs to be made with Manhattan (the County of New York) rather than all of New York City. All of New York City would properly be compared with the entire region of Ile-de-Paris.


----------



## marathon (Jun 6, 2004)

scguy said:


> Where is Sydney on this list??? Did I miss it or was it ommited?


#77 was Sydney, #98 was Melbourne.


----------



## ncik (Nov 12, 2004)

MikeHunt said:


> 76 Yangon Myanmar 4,480,000
> 77 Sydney, New South Wales Australia 4,490,000


should be swapped around



> 68 San Diego, California-Tijuana, Baja California


does not have population figure


----------



## Sitback (Nov 1, 2004)

MikeHunt said:


> Not true... As I mentioned, if you consider an area around NYC that, like Greater London, is 600 sq miles, there would be about 13M people in that area, which is double the number that is within the 600 sq miles encompassed by greater London. There are millions of people in NJ immediately on the other side of the Hudson River.
> 
> NY is a much bigger city than London is. No one is suggesting that that makes it better. Tokyo is clearly bigger than NY, yet I prefer NY. London is bigger than Paris, yet I prefer Paris. Sao Paulo is much bigger than Madrid, yet no one is going to claim that it's a better city than Madrid is.


No NY is NOT much bigger then London, the city proper of London is infact much bigger then New York proper. And don't give me none of that metro pop rubbish. Indeed New York is much denser in pop however London is dense enough for me thankyou. The way people live virtually on top of one another in New York is horrible.


----------



## Sitback (Nov 1, 2004)

MikeHunt said:


> No, Nick, what I'm saying is that, as someone who lived in London for two years, I perceived that it is much smaller than NY. The fact that Greater London has 50% the population density of NY is indicative of that.


It's only smaller in population density please be more specific with what you say. London as a physical city is vaaast compared to New York. I too have lived in both cities ta very much.


----------



## titeness (Jul 3, 2004)

Sitback said:


> No NY is NOT much bigger then London, the city proper of London is infact much bigger then New York proper. And don't give me none of that metro pop rubbish. Indeed New York is much denser in pop however London is dense enough for me thankyou. The way people live virtually on top of one another in New York is horrible.


 :bash: 

Sitback you are so very ignorant!! How can you refer to the Greater Metro Area of NY as rubbish when Greater London in itself is the definition of a metro area! London didn't used to be such a huge area, it was only made such within the last 40 years. You have to understand American government is much different, you couldn't make NYC extend 600 square miles as Greater London does (note the term Greater which means extended area) because the United States has seperate government entities, its not like in the U.K. where every single form of government is entirely part of and suboordinate to the crown. (U.K.) 

The United States uses a federal system of government where different states are autonomous and any cooperation is voluntary. You cant say that ROMFORD or CROYDON are any closer culturally, economically, or geographically to London than Long Island and Westchester county are to N.Y.C. YOU KNOW THAT! So stop being a nationalist moron.

This is a silly discussion anyway because the population of New York City (which by most opinions is a fraction of the metro area) has a population of over 8 million and Greater London (which by most opinions including government defenition IS the metro area) has a population of over 7 million.


----------



## Sitback (Nov 1, 2004)

Greater London isn't the definition of our metro at all you pillock. It's our city proper, I live here and I can tell you from Crodon to Central London is all continous build up like a city should be.

Areas of our Metro go up to Watford, Radlett etc, well out of the boundaries of Greater London.


----------



## titeness (Jul 3, 2004)

nick-taylor said:


> But I still don't get what your point is here. If you don't agree with the city boundaries of New York or London, write off to the appropiate authorities. Then again what exact authority do you have to state where a city ends and a city finishes? Compare to the City of Paris only Manhattan is comparable in New York, so you could argue that the other 4 boroughs of New York City are suburban when compared to the actual City of Paris.
> 
> Either way, New York is currently larger by city proper, urban and metropolitan area, although considering London is now absorbing at a higher rate it will within the next few years overtake New York in the city proper category.
> 
> ...




The city of Paris has a population of only 2,147,857 which is comparable to Manhattan and NOT to NYC.


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

titeness said:


> :bash:
> 
> Sitback you are so very ignorant!! How can you refer to the Greater Metro Area of NY as rubbish when Greater London in itself is the definition of a metro area! London didn't used to be such a huge area, it was only made such within the last 40 years. You have to understand American government is much different, you couldn't make NYC extend 600 square miles as Greater London does (note the term Greater which means extended area) because the United States has seperate government entities, its not like in the U.K. where every single form of government is entirely part of and suboordinate to the crown. (U.K.)
> 
> ...


I'm not going to get into this discussion again, which seems to happen so often it's pathetic. 

On one side, you have some British people who refuse to accept the official U:S. government combined metropolitan area of NY as 21million people, as if they know better than the U.S. government about their own cities.

And on the other hand you have American’s that are more than happy to accept their U.S. metropolitan area’s (which are some of the most “liberal” in the world in definition) yet refuse to accept an official London government definition, likewise as if they know better than London government demographers.

And then, the silliest of all, you have some people like above that bring up the obviously incorrect statement (and trying to debate it) that the area known as “Greater London” is in fact a metropolitan area. Now, I don’t want to get too upset over this all, but it really confounds me, how someone can look at a statistic such as Greater London, which covers 1500km²~, which has a political boundary that does not change, has a mayor and every other criteria that identifies it as a city proper, and still try an argue that it is a metropolitan area such as the NY CMSA.

This is not Rocket Science titeness.

1st of all, if you have an area that has borders that don’t change from demographic movement, i.e. a politically static border that isn’t defined by commuter movement, then it can’t possibly be a metropolitan area. Since metropolitan area’s are devised mainly by commuter percentages.

2nd, How many metropolitan area’s around the world have a mayor? Very very few, if any. Usually when it does, it’s simply a large political area known as a city proper that also happens to be around the same size as the commuting area and so both take on the same name.

3rd, If Greater London really is a metropolitan area, it’s probably one of the smallest in the world in geographical size. Name one other metropolitan area on earth that only covers 1500km²~ and is over 5million people. (keeping in mind London’s is over 7million)

4th, if this really was the smallest metropolitan area, based on commuter percentages, then how come the suburbs continue past it? If it really was the metro, then why is the direct urban area actually larger in population?

There is so much wrong with your statement. If you simply suggested that London’s metro was the area called “Greater London”, then so be it. A simple correction would be all that is needed. But you attacked with your statement as if you know what’s right, and the rest of the world is wrong.

Greater London is no more the metropolitan area of London than New York City is the metropolitan area of New York.


----------



## titeness (Jul 3, 2004)

Sitback said:


> Greater London isn't the definition of our metro at all you pillock. It's our city proper, I live here and I can tell you from Crodon to Central London is all continous build up like a city should be.
> 
> Areas of our Metro go up to Watford, Radlett etc, well out of the boundaries of Greater London.


"City Proper" Sigh* :bash: you are using terms that have different meanings in different places, City Proper has no meaning outisde of the British Empire ; AND I'm telling you that Greater London was only established after World War 2 at which point the London Area had its peak all-time population, this "Greater London" was created so that the METRO LONDON AREA (GREATER LONDON AREA) could be governed by one authority. Basically im telling you that just because the New York Metro area is governed by different authorities doesn't make it less substantial than the Greater London Area.

Also your a plain fool if you think Greater London is more built up in anyway than the New York Metro Area, in particular if you think Central London to Croydon (Keep in mind south London is not considerable dense) is more built up than say, Manhattan to Westchester County (Uptown, Bronx, Yonkers, New Rochelle, etc, which is very very densley populated) isn't London the city that prides itself for having more green and open space than any other major world city?


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

titeness said:


> The city of Paris has a population of only 2,147,857 which is comparable to Manhattan and NOT to NYC.


ok, I can look at this two ways.

1) you are correct. In that the city proper of Paris at 2.1million is more comparable to the population of Manhatten which is 1.5million in size.

2) However, if you are trying to say that the city proper of Paris is politically more comparable to Manhatten, then that is completely wrong. Paris and New York City are direct comparisons as far as a city structure can be on international level. Both are political entities with a mayor and static borders.


----------



## titeness (Jul 3, 2004)

Justme said:


> Greater London is more the metropolitan area of London than New York City is the metropolitan area of New York.



:weirdo: Ha Ha Ha , your nonsensical statement makes you sound like a drunk.


----------



## london-b (Jul 31, 2004)

titeness said:


> "City Proper" Sigh* :bash: you are using terms that have different meanings in different places, City Proper has no meaning outisde of the British Empire ; AND I'm telling you that Greater London was only established after World War 2 at which point the London Area had its peak all-time population, this "Greater London" was created so that the METRO LONDON AREA (GREATER LONDON AREA) could be governed by one authority. Basically im telling you that just because the New York Metro area is governed by different authorities doesn't make it less substantial than the Greater London Area.
> 
> Also your a plain fool if you think Greater London is more built up in anyway than the New York Metro Area, in particular if you think Central London to Croydon (Keep in mind south London is not considerable dense) is more built up than say, Manhattan to Westchester County (Uptown, Bronx, Yonkers, New Rochelle, etc, which is very very densley populated) isn't London the city that prides itself for having more green and open space than any other major world city?


Get it into your head that Greater London is not London's Metro area!!!!! :bash:


----------



## london-b (Jul 31, 2004)

titeness said:


> :weirdo: Ha Ha Ha , your nonsensical statement makes you sound like a drunk.


Justme makes 10x the sense you do :bash:


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

titeness said:


> "City Proper" Sigh* :bash: you are using terms that have different meanings in different places, City Proper has no meaning outisde of the British Empire


This is entirely untrue. The "city proper" term is used for the political entity of a city and is used in the majority of country's around the world in one form or another.



titeness said:


> AND I'm telling you that Greater London was only established after World War 2 at which point the London Area had its peak all-time population, this "Greater London" was created so that the METRO LONDON AREA (GREATER LONDON AREA) could be governed by one authority. Basically im telling you that just because the New York Metro area is governed by different authorities doesn't make it less substantial than the Greater London Area.


This is one very incorrect statement. The Greater London area was never created as a "metropolitan area" as we know today, as at the time, the usage of the term meant an entirely different thing. If you want to know about the history and political meaning of "Greater London", read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_London

New York's metro has also grown many times since WWII. A metropolitan area is a dynamic region that usually has no political entity and is defined by commuter percentages. If you want to learn about metropolitan area's, read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_area


----------



## titeness (Jul 3, 2004)

Justme said:


> ok, I can look at this two ways.
> 
> 1) you are correct. In that the city proper of Paris at 2.1million is more comparable to the population of Manhatten which is 1.5million in size.
> 
> 2) However, if you are trying to say that the city proper of Paris is politically more comparable to Manhatten, then that is completely wrong. Paris and New York City are direct comparisons as far as a city structure can be on international level. Both are political entities with a mayor and static borders.


So let me get this straight, According to your "City Proper" Asswipe nomenclature which is frankly very annoying, for purposes of comparison, Paris only includes the "City of Paris" while London "City Proper" is "Greater London" thus you can say London is three times as populous as Paris!. I understand this sort of reasoning if your say, defining your taxing district, determining your voting location, or for purposes of mail distribution but NOT for purposes of COMPARISON which this whole friggin discussion is about.


This is from your WILKEPEDIA LINK : "The status of Greater London is somewhat unusual. It is officially classified as a Ceremonial county (excluding the City of London, which is a Ceremonial county itself) and as one of the nine official Regions of England. It is the only English region with wide ranging devolved powers, an elected regional assembly or a directly elected leader position. It contains 32 London boroughs (including the City of Westminster), which are effectively unitary authorities, and the City of London, which has a unique government dating back to the 12th Century.

The term "London" is usually used in reference to Greater London or to the urban conurbation, not to the tiny City of London at its centre (which is usually styled as "the City" or "the Square Mile"). In strict legal terms however Greater London is not a city and does not have official city status (though one London borough, Westminster, is officially a city, as well as the City of London itself)." WILKEPEDIA 2005

NOTICE HOW THEY SAID GREATER LONDON IS NOT AN ACTUAL CITY! so whats the population of "the city of london" in actuallity about 100,000! that makes N.Y.C. some eighty times more populous than London! SO MY WHOLE POINT IS "CITY PROPER" POPULATION IS NOT AN ACCURATE METHOD OF COMPARING CITIES!! METRO AREA IS THE KEY!! and BASED ON THAT N.Y.C IS SUBSTANCIALLY BIGGER!!


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

titeness said:


> :weirdo: Ha Ha Ha , your nonsensical statement makes you sound like a drunk.


Actually, I missed a "no" in that statement, which I have now corrected.

What I meant was "Greater London is *no* more the metropolitan area of London than New York City is the metropolitan area of New York


----------



## london-b (Jul 31, 2004)

titeness said:


> So let me get this straight, According to your "City Proper" Asswipe nomenclature which is frankly very annoying, for purposes of comparison, Paris only includes the "City of Paris" while London "City Proper" is "Greater London" thus you can say London is three times as populous as Paris!. I understand this sort of reasoning if your say, defining your taxing district, determining your voting location, or for purposes of mail distribution but NOT for purposes of COMPARISON which this whole friggin discussion is about.
> 
> 
> This is from your WILKEPEDIA LINK : "The status of Greater London is somewhat unusual. It is officially classified as a Ceremonial county (excluding the City of London, which is a Ceremonial county itself) and as one of the nine official Regions of England. It is the only English region with wide ranging devolved powers, an elected regional assembly or a directly elected leader position. It contains 32 London boroughs (including the City of Westminster), which are effectively unitary authorities, and the City of London, which has a unique government dating back to the 12th Century.
> ...


London's city proper is 3x the sixe of Paris! As Paris's city proper is the city of Paris, well done!


----------



## titeness (Jul 3, 2004)

SOME MORE WILKEPEDIA GOODIES: 

"The following is a list of the 25 most populated metropolitan statistical areas and Metropolitan Divisions in the United States, according to the 2000 Census:
Rank Metropolitan Area Metropolitan Division States/Territories Population Other names*
1 New York--Northern New Jersey--Long Island NY--NJ--CT 18,323,002 Tri-state Area, New York area, Greater New York
- Edison, NJ NJ 2,173,869 
- Nassau-Suffolk, NY NY 2,753,913 Long Island
- Newark-Union NJ 2,098,843 
- New York-Wayne-White Plains NJ, NY 11,296,377 " Wilkepedia 2005.

**Note a definable range of 11.2 - 18.3 Million (A minimum of 11.2 would be exlcuding N.J. which for COMPARITIVE reasons is obivously part of the N.Y.C economic, and geographical Urban Area. 

HERES ANOTHER: 

"These are the largest metropolitan areas and cities of Europe. Where the population figure is for a metropolitan area, the population of the city proper is given in the brackets.

In many cases, the list of Largest urban areas of the European Union would give figures that better reflects common understanding of the different cities' sizes as the metropolitan areas include also non-urban and suburban areas and administrative borders for cities often cut across the most urban areas. As in the rest of the world, metropolitan areas in Europe are much debated, and widely different figures are given for the same place by different sources. These figures should be seen as an interpretation, not as conclusive facts.

<
City name Population
Moscow, Russia 13,600,000 (10,411,400)
London, UK 11,850,000 (7,238,109)"

NOTE a definable range of 7.2 - 11.8 million inhabitants, DONE ARGUMENT OVER NEW YORK is substancially bigger than LONDON.


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

titeness said:


> So let me get this straight, According to your "City Proper" Asswipe nomenclature which is frankly very annoying, for purposes of comparison, Paris only includes the "City of Paris" while London "City Proper" is "Greater London" thus you can say London is three times as populous as Paris!. I understand this sort of reasoning if your say, defining your taxing district, determining your voting location, or for purposes of mail distribution but NOT for purposes of COMPARISON which this whole friggin discussion is about.


Yes, London is three times as large as Paris as far as the city proper goes. If you were to sit the mayor of London and the mayor of Paris together at a table, which I am sure they have done many times. The mayor of London (Ken Livingston) would be that of the 7.3million population area, whilst the mayor of Paris would be that of the 2.1million area.

That is a fact. You can deny that as much as you like, but London's mayor, Ken Livingstone over sees an area of 7.3million people.



titeness said:


> This is from your WILKEPEDIA LINK : "The status of Greater London is somewhat unusual. It is officially classified as a Ceremonial county (excluding the City of London, which is a Ceremonial county itself) and as one of the nine official Regions of England. It is the only English region with wide ranging devolved powers, an elected regional assembly or a directly elected leader position. It contains 32 London boroughs (including the City of Westminster), which are effectively unitary authorities, and the City of London, which has a unique government dating back to the 12th Century.


And what has that to do with a metropolitan area. The same link even say's that London's metropolitan area extends far further from "Greater London". 

London is a very old city, as you don't have to be a historical genius to realize that politics has changed dramatically over the last 2000 years. London is made of 32 boroughs, like New York City is made up of boroughs. The "city of London" is one, and only has a population of some one thousand people.

But the fact remains, that the mayor of London, is Ken Livingstone, and his city has 7.3million people and is known as "Greater London".



titeness said:


> The term "London" is usually used in reference to Greater London or to the urban conurbation, not to the tiny City of London at its centre (which is usually styled as "the City" or "the Square Mile"). In strict legal terms however Greater London is not a city and does not have official city status (though one London borough, Westminster, is officially a city, as well as the City of London itself)." WILKEPEDIA 2005


This is correct in British historical terms of a city, In the United Kingdom, a city is a town which has been known as a city since time immemorial, or which has received city status by royal charter. Natually, a royal charter is of no significance when comparing internationally. These day's the current royal family doesn't grant new charters.

But I love this part, right below your quote you deliberately omited this sentence

*However in practical terms Greater London is effectively a single city, and is commonly thought of as such.*

:lol: Why did you omit that? 

At international level, Greater London is a full city. 

It is not a metropolitan area which is made up by commuter percentages. 

*ARE YOU TRYING TO TELL US THAT GREATER LONDON AND IT'S AREA WAS CREATED BY COMMUTER PERCENTAGES?*


----------



## london-b (Jul 31, 2004)

titeness said:


> SOME MORE WILKEPEDIA GOODIES:
> 
> "The following is a list of the 25 most populated metropolitan statistical areas and Metropolitan Divisions in the United States, according to the 2000 Census:
> Rank Metropolitan Area Metropolitan Division States/Territories Population Other names*
> ...


That uses one way of working out metro figures, it is not a universal way to define a metro area.


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

titeness said:


> , DONE ARGUMENT OVER NEW YORK is substancially bigger than LONDON.


I'm not saying the New York isn't larger than London, I'm telling you that you have absolutely no idea what Greater London is, or a metropolitan area/region that surrounds a city.

Have a look at this official document from the Mayor of London. Page 18 may give you a hint.
http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/strategies/sds/london_plan/lon_plan_all.pdf


----------



## rocky (Apr 20, 2005)

those us metros are really metro cities, and should be considered like this. 
sure they are not as much populated as area in europe or asia that are not metro areas.
but those cities like brussels lille antwerp amsterdam etc, are not organised around 1 core center, and do not function like a real metro does. its more a conurbation. i doubt the average guy in brussels knows amsterdam and lille as much as the average guy in the NYC suburbs knows manhatan, despite living at the same distance.


----------



## great prairie (Jul 18, 2005)

Kuesel said:


> Thanks Storeman :cheers:
> 
> Once you leave the center city you are in pure boring sprawl withough any identity.


ever been to an american suburb before?


----------



## streetscapeer (Apr 30, 2004)

Kuesel said:


> Thanks Storeman :cheers:
> 
> In the US the cities are planned car-friendly and the surrounding area is REALLY suburban. Once you leave the center city you are in pure boring sprawl withough any identity.




This means that you know very little about American suburbs




> The US doesn't really "exaggerate" the area, but Europe is much denser populated historically. And the different cities have their 1000 year history. The start growing together by urban sprawl because of the areal infrastructure.


this is correct


----------



## streetscapeer (Apr 30, 2004)

rocky said:


> those us metros are really metro cities, and should be considered like this.
> sure they are not as much populated as area in europe or asia that are not metro areas.
> but those cities like brussels lille antwerp amsterdam etc, are not organised around 1 core center, and do not function like a real metro does. its more a conurbation. i doubt the average guy in brussels knows amsterdam and lille as much as the average guy in the NYC suburbs knows manhatan, despite living at the same distance.



this is well said


----------



## streetscapeer (Apr 30, 2004)

jon jon said:


> American metro areas are grossly exaggerated compared to other countries. "Metro Los Angeles" covers 2/3 of the land area of England and extends all the way to the Nevada border.





*umm...you guys really don't understand how American metros work

do you see the Nevada border anywhere near here??*































*nothing is "grossly" exaggerated...American metros are simply larger in area (obviously) and larger in population.*


----------



## great prairie (Jul 18, 2005)

yeah countries with larger populations almost always have larger metros

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004391.html

1. China 1,306,313,812 
2. India 1,080,264,388 
3. United States 295,734,134 
4. Indonesia 241,973,879 
5. Brazil 186,112,794
14. Germany 82,431,390 
20. France 60,656,178 
21. United Kingdom 60,441,457 
29. Spain 40,341,462


----------



## Küsel (Sep 16, 2004)

I KNOW US suburbs, I am very sorry - I was studying urban planning and was in many US cities. The morphology of American cities is extremly different from the ones in Europe. I don't say the don't exist boring suburbs and artificial fuctionary New Towns in Europe (especially the beaulieus in France or in Easter Europe) but as rocky mentioned: American cities are more concentrated on one historical center as Boston, New York, LA etc. Clear there are exceptions like the Bay Area which has also several historical cores. But in Europe the cities work a lot as multi-cored networks and it's not true that someone in Bruxelles doesn't know Amsterdam. In Rhein-Ruhr, Rhein-Main, Po-valley or Swiss Midlands a lot people commute every day from one center to the other, do their leisure and shopping in another one etc. The (especially time-) distance is very short with a dense train and Autobahn-network. Someone from a Zurich suburb knows the city sometimes less than someone from Basel or Bern. 

The identification with his community is here still very strong, 95% of the towns exist and were naturaly grown over many centuries and have even their specific dialects - in Spain, Switzerland, Italy the municipalities have sometimes the area of a few sqare kilometers (Geneva or Basel have some 15 km2 of area - no wonder they don't have 500k pop!) and the closer agglomerations contain already up to 100 different communities - metro areas several hundred on relatively small area.


----------



## streetscapeer (Apr 30, 2004)

Kuesel said:


> I KNOW US suburbs, I am very sorry - I was studying urban planning and was in many US cities. The morphology of American cities is extremly different from the ones in Europe. I don't say the don't exist boring suburbs and artificial fuctionary New Towns in Europe (especially the beaulieus in France or in Easter Europe) but as rocky mentioned: American cities are more concentrated on one historical center as Boston, New York, LA etc. Clear there are exceptions like the Bay Area which has also several historical cores. But in Europe the cities work a lot as multi-cored networks and it's not true that someone in Bruxelles doesn't know Amsterdam. In Rhein-Ruhr, Rhein-Main, Po-valley or Swiss Midlands a lot people commute every day from one center to the other, do their leisure and shopping in another one etc. The (especially time-) distance is very short with a dense train and Autobahn-network. Someone from a Zurich suburb knows the city sometimes less than someone from Basel or Bern.
> 
> The identification with his community is here still very strong, 95% of the towns exist and were naturaly grown over many centuries and have even their specific dialects - in Spain, Switzerland, Italy the municipalities have sometimes the area of a few sqare kilometers (Geneva or Basel have some 15 km2 of area - no wonder they don't have 500k pop!) and the closer agglomerations contain already up to 100 different communities - metro areas several hundred on relatively small area.



I agree with almost everything you had to say...it's just that many foreigners on this site seem to think that ALL suburbs are like the ultra-low density, tract-housing suburbs that you would find on th outskirts of Atlanta or something (or other out-lyers in the newer south and west cities). I'm not saying there isn't that in America, but the *majority* of Americans live in, at the least, decent-density suburbs...most are not "soul-less" or "boring-looking."


Also LA is one of the most multi-nucleated metros in the US. 
And depite NY having a very dominant historical core, it has *many* other significant cores in the metro.


In addition to the reason you just mentioned, One of the major reasons it is easier for Americans to identify with a particular "metropolitan area," instead of a particular munincipality, is because there is generally no forests or rural areas or whatnot dividing the historical cores or villages (neighborood) of the metro area. The urban (developed) areas are alot more continuous.


----------



## GENIUS LOCI (Nov 18, 2004)

I think one of the difference between America and europe is density... and that's obvious, but I mean in the "perception" of the space and even of cities role and metro aeras extension, and last but not least extensive occupation of the soil

I was in Canada and United States in May and June: I travelled a lot by car or bus.
For exemple I went from montreal to New York (about 800 kms)
In these 800 kms what do you can find? 
Albany, no much more...
800 kms are about the distance between Milan and Naples: do you know how many things you can find on the road?
Apart landscapes: main cities you can find are Bologna, Florence, Rome (and I wanted only to name the most famous...), but during all the journey you can see in every moment cities or villages around you
Travelling in Europe in countries like Spain or France I remained astonished for the distances to go from a city to another without seeing a single house, while in Italy everywher you travel you see cities, cities, cities...
Well: that was nothing respect the "empty spaces" I saw in NA
And I was in Eastern part of United States and Canada, the most urbanized part of America!

Conclusion: maybe for a shorter history, maybe for a bigger immense territory, reffering points in America are "few"
So you can find cities located even 200 or 300 kms from New York City or Los Angeles being in strong relationship with these main cities (simply 'cause there are no others for hundreds miles) and to be considered in their metro areas

Then, obviously, if you take the size of American metro areas and put 'em on Europe they can't work 
Some metro areas size are big as whole Northern Italy; then, in Northern Italy more than 40 mio people live: but there are cities like Milan, Genoa, Venice, Bolonia, Turin....
I think it's impossible to think they're all in the same metro area

On the other hand in NA, if we want to compare metro areas of the two continents, it would be convenient to "resize" American metros: for exemple delimitating areas till the point urbanization and conurbation are homogeneous
Urban centers hundreds miles far from the "core", even if in America are _oblidged_ to have major relationships with these cores, 'cause they are the nearest, should not be counted
Besides I don't think this centers so far from the main city could have a "real" metro relation with the "center" (as everyday commuters, for exemple) simply 'cause they are too far
They're refferring to the main cities for _rare functions_ they got, as pubblic or high finance institutions for exemple, but for "everyday bussiness" they do not depend from them
We could even get to the conclusion more cities in Europe have rare functions respect NA: but for a historical and density factor


----------



## You are to blame (Oct 14, 2004)

lokinyc said:


> The census counted a population of 6.7 million in the extended Golden Horseshoe in 2001. I'm curious if you have any facts to back up your claim of 7.5 million?


growth rate for 5 years


----------



## titeness (Jul 3, 2004)

GENIUS LOCI said:


> for exemple delimitating areas till the point urbanization and conurbation are homogeneous
> Urban centers hundreds miles far from the "core", even if in America are _oblidged_ to have major relationships with these cores, 'cause they are the nearest, should not be counted


:weird: 

WTF are you saying, who lives hundreds of miles from an urban core and considers it part of thier metro area? American Metros are larger, but are FAR much easier to traverse by automobile which is undoubtable the easiest way to commute, (based on frequency of travel and individual comfort)


----------



## great prairie (Jul 18, 2005)

GENIUS LOCI said:


> rambling


dude it's internet you just wasted a lot of time, no one gives a **** about your completely pointless post


----------



## Küsel (Sep 16, 2004)

Who let the Trolls out...?! We are here in a serious discussion, come on! With all these offences you only degrade yourselves.


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

titeness said:


> Theres alot of back and forth about defining London Metro Area and NY Metro Area, Metro areas in America are larger because its more feasable to live far from center and commute, You could live in New Haven and commuter to NYC daily, In general America has much better autombile links and is much easier to traverse by auto, thus naturally American metro areas are larger.


And in general, European cities have much better public transport. You also have to take into account that road transport is seriously good in many perts of Europe, such as the autobahns in Germany. 

Another point, in relation to London, is that the metropolitan area and commuter belt has grown so large _because_ of the high costs of living in central London. many people have moved out of the city to find cheaper housing.



titeness said:


> Alot of the places supposedly in the London metro area are very suspicious and are not really connected. For example that map shows Reading, Berkshire as being within the metro area, based on the fact that I lived in Reading I can tell you its not feasible to live in Reading and commute to London, with Gas being 4x as expensive as the states, its just too expensive and the new Congestion Charging scheme for Central London is only going to actually make Londons metro area even smaller.


I also lived in Reading, and it certainly is within the commuter belt. I myself commuted to London on a daily basis and the trains are very fast and frequent.



titeness said:


> In general everything in England is more expensive, especially travel, compare NYC subways/buses cost to the Tube/London Buses cost and you see my exact point, more expensive travel means that the London metro area in actuality is not as large in area or population as New Yorks, in fact its not even close as New York is much more dense.


Subways in NY stay within the city proper and have nothing to do with that city's metropolitan area. The rail network surrounding London is more extensive than New York, and is used enormously for commuter travel into the city.



titeness said:


> Also where are the riduculous claims that Londons metro area is 18 million!?!? Show me one official document that claims such, you just wont find anything that pute London's metro area significantly over 10 million


I don't know why I bother. I have already linked official government documents complete with maps on this area. Why bother if you don't even care to look at them? Anyway, here is one: (Page 18)



titeness said:


> unless you prescribe to the notion that the entire South East of England (1/4 of the entire country) is in Londons Metro area, which is absolutley ridiculous, much like my German Friend "JustMe" New York surpases London after WWII some people (especially europeans, excluding most brits who really dont care,) just cant get over that.


No, you simply don't know your figures and definitions. Keep in mind, you spent most of this thread trying to debate that London's metro area is only 1500km² in area and known as "Greater London", yet were happy with New York's metro area being 33,000km² in area ????

By the way, who said I'm German? That's another example of you making mistakes based on bad judgements.


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

rocky said:


> those us metros are really metro cities, and should be considered like this.
> sure they are not as much populated as area in europe or asia that are not metro areas.
> but those cities like brussels lille antwerp amsterdam etc, are not organised around 1 core center, and do not function like a real metro does. its more a conurbation. i doubt the average guy in brussels knows amsterdam and lille as much as the average guy in the NYC suburbs knows manhatan, despite living at the same distance.


I have never heard of any organization that links Brussels with Amsterdam as a metro. That is simply wrong. However, there are government definitions for bi-polar metro area's known as the Rhein-Maas (Aachen (germany), Maastrict (Netherlands) and Leige (Belgium), as well as the Randstad (or Deltametropolis) which has the cities of Amsterdam, Utrecht, Rotterdam etc, the Rhein-Rurh (mentioned already) all of which are multi city or poly-centric metro's.

These do exist in the U.S. with one of the most famous being the Bay Area (San Francisco is no longer even the largest or economically most powerful city in the Bay Area). In fact, the "CMSA" in the U.S. is very similar in design, which is why they officially have different names in the title, such as:
Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA
Boston-Worcester-Lawrence, MA-NH-ME-CT CMSA
Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY MSA
Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA
Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI CMSA
Denver-Boulder-Greeley, CO CMSA
Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News, VA-NC MSA
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD CMSA

etc etc. (In fact most of the top 50 U.S. CMSA's are listed like this)

These CMSA's work in a very similar context to the European ones with multiple cities. You have to remember that a metro area is not just created by people commuting to the central city area, but also to the outskirts and crosscommuting. That's why metro area's are also called regions, because they do work at a regional basis.



> In addition to the reason you just mentioned, One of the major reasons it is easier for Americans to identify with a particular "metropolitan area," instead of a particular munincipality, is because there is generally no forests or rural areas or whatnot dividing the historical cores or villages (neighborood) of the metro area. The urban (developed) areas are alot more continuous.


Actually, this is true, and also works the other way around, by which I mean why metropolitan area's are less known and a new concept in Europe. Because of the greenbelts and open space between urban area's, it is not "visually" seen as a single metro, it's only when people understand the concept of a "metro" as vrs an "urban area" which is very different do they see the often invisible links between urban area's that still exist in reality. 

Because of these gaps between urban area's, they more resemble the different cities that they are, but because of the proximity and the cross commuting they also resemble the metropolitan area's that they are. One can be seen with the eye, the other concept an "MA" is a statistical area.

One has to also remember that there are also vast area's of countryside in all American MA's (especially CMSA's) as well. The problem is that *very few* people actually know the difference between an Urban area and a Metropolitan area - most people believe they are one and the same, and most people just assume that the MA figures they always hear about in the U.S. are actually the Urban Area they see with their eyes.

Confusion also exists in Europe which has just started to look at metro area's on a large scale. When European's are first confronted with this, they don't realise it's a concept that has been used in other countries for many years (France also has a long history with them, so it's not totally new in Europe), and they often fail to see the difference between statistical coverage of a cities economic influence and commuter range (an MA) and just the direct Urban Area.

MA's, anywhere in the world are not "visiual" demographics, even in the U.S. They are purely Statistical regions defined to encompas an area which has a close identity around a city based usually on commuter percentages. Few people understand how these percentages are added up (almost no one assumes that cross commuting is also taken into account, but it is quite logical when thinking about it) and almost no one expects an MA to include open land and countryside, which it does, and also in the U.S. as well.


----------



## Küsel (Sep 16, 2004)

Maybe it's my fault because of the Bruxelles-Randstad-metro and was obviously misunderstood. I just meant IF you would put these areas as ONE metro it would be in size and population about the same as the map shown of NY metro. Sorry for that!

The US metros are mostly based, as you said on commuter percentages. In Europe every country has a different system. Italy doesn't even define metro areas, France differs between agglomeration and aires urbaines and we between national agglomerations (for the small scale traffic plannings) and metropolitan areas. The definition is very complex and contains several different factors combined as percentage of first sector workers, commuters to the center or subcenters, common overbuild area, pop and workplace density... The pop density is quite high here and that's why by eyesight you can't differ one agglomeration from the other anymore, so some form metropolitan areas. Just an example:

Wetting on the top belongs to agglomeration Baden, Neuenhof on the south of the river to Zurich...









Both are part of the same metro though:








The map shows the avarage time spent while commuting to the center by car. The pt though is faster: from Lenzburg (in the west) to the center is 20 minutes by train.


----------



## spotila (Oct 29, 2004)

spxy said:


> Well heres some maps of London and New york scaled using google maps.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Is this urban overlay done in googlemaps, or is it just put on afterwards? If so, how? And is it possible in google earth (using a 3rd party overlay of some kind?). That would be a really neat idea, as in google earth it is difficult to determine the urban areas of larger cities due to the difference in photo quality etc.


----------



## streetscapeer (Apr 30, 2004)

Justme said:


> I have never heard of any organization that links Brussels with Amsterdam as a metro. That is simply wrong. However, there are government definitions for bi-polar metro area's known as the Rhein-Maas (Aachen (germany), Maastrict (Netherlands) and Leige (Belgium), as well as the Randstad (or Deltametropolis) which has the cities of Amsterdam, Utrecht, Rotterdam etc, the Rhein-Rurh (mentioned already) all of which are multi city or poly-centric metro's.
> 
> These do exist in the U.S. with one of the most famous being the Bay Area (San Francisco is no longer even the largest or economically most powerful city in the Bay Area). In fact, the "CMSA" in the U.S. is very similar in design, which is why they officially have different names in the title, such as:
> Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA
> ...


I agree with everything you are saying...and I certainly do understand the difference between urban-area and metropolitan area (a metro being region with economic inter-dependency)

What I was trying to convey, however is that MA's in the US are much, much closer to being urban areas than MA's in Europe (in general, of course).

If a US metro is fragemented, the fragments tend to be much larger then the fragments of European metros, and the fragments themselves are much less numerous.

This is all in general, of course. There are some American metros that are more European in layout (like Boston [and the NE], with its many townships).. I would imagine there are some Euro metros that are slightly more American in character too.



what you said 2 pages ago is basically my point too



Justme said:


> This does have a big "visual" difference in the size of cities. U.S. cities really do seem much larger, because you have to drive through so much urban land to reach the countryside. Even if it is low density, the perception is that of such a large city. In Europe, even London, it is very quick to reach the countryside where the green belt begins. The metro continues past that, but in tighter, higher density pockets rather than vast area's of low density housing.
> 
> I'm not saying any one method is better or worse than the other, both have advantages and disadvantages. But there is a difference on "perception" of size, based on larger urban area's, and actually population in seperate but "economically connected" denser communities.
> 
> Let's look at it this way. U.S. cities, by their very nature, have far larger urban area's, and usually thus far larger urban area populations than their European counterparts. European cities usually have a greenbelt surrounding the central core, and this keeps the urban area size and population smaller. But when it comes to metropolitan area's, Europe has quite a few. There are over 100 European MA's over 1million, compared to about 50 in the U.S. (Of cause, Europe has a far larger population than the U.S. so this is not a comparison of dick sizes, but simply pointing out a figure)


----------



## pricemazda (Feb 14, 2004)

London has 3 cities. In the UK a town only becomes a city when it receives a Royal Charter, this used to be only when a town has a Cathedral. The size of the city is irrelevant. St David's in Wales is the UK smallest city with 6000 people.

But London which takes its name from the City of London is made up of 3 cities, the City of Westminster, City of Southwark and City of London, as they all have Cathedrals, Westminster Abbey, Southwark Cathedral and St Pauls. 

Greater London was originally designed as a Greater London Council to provide city-wide services and be accountable to the residents of London. All British counties had 2 layers of local government. In London we had the GLC and London boroughs of which the City of London, Southwark and Wesminster are just 3 out of 32 boroughs. 

Greater London is merely the political boundary of London. The continuous built up area goes beyond that political boundary. London's populations are 7.3 million in Greater London, Metro area, 11.8 million and 18 million using US methods. 

Go read up from the Mayor's office.


----------



## streetscapeer (Apr 30, 2004)

Looking at http://www.demographia.com/db-lonuza1680.htm one can see that the urbanized area population is closer to the metropolitan area population in New York than they are in London

London

8,279,000 



New York

17,799,861 



IMO, The reason why the London metropolitan area is so debated is because the separate labor markets of London and the South-East Engalnd are less overlapping and more "adjacent" than are New York and its suburbs. Not to say there is no overlap, but it's to a lesser extent than New York.


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

streetscapeer said:


> Looking at http://www.demographia.com/db-lonuza1680.htm one can see that the urbanized area population is closer to the metropolitan area population in New York than they are in London
> 
> London
> 
> ...


Actually, it is important to also point out that there are vast differences to how urbanized area's are calculated in different countries, mainly based on cultural perceptions on what should be classified as urban area's.

The U.S. with lower density housing, vast open spaces to develop land and other reasons has a much more "liberal" definition of what is classified as "urban" than the U.K.

There are different methods, but in many cases the U.S. use a calculation based on _x_ amount of residents per square mile. If it reaches a certain point (I can't remember if it is 1000 or 2000 per mile²) then that grid is classified as Urban. It is also why when looking at many urban maps of the U.S. you see many straight lines rather than the more organic maps of other countries.

In Britain they use a completely different definition, which is based on how far an area can be of open land between two urban area's (e.g. approx) 200meters), what get's complicated, is if farmland (inner city farms included) are counted, open land, rivers and water, parks, fields, unused vacant lots etc. Also, the depth of an urban strip connecting two larger urban area's. e.g. if a road 1km long stretches between two built up area's, but is only 1 house deep of urbanity, is it included...

There are so many variables, and again, this is only Britain, every other country is different.

A classic way to look at this, is the very site you linked above. They have another page where they compare London's Urbanity with New York, L.A and Paris. The figures are a bit dated, but it shows clearly how different they can be.

Using the British method, London only has 8.6million (latest figures) and 8.2million (the earlier Demographia figures) within it's urban area before the green belt kicks in.

Using the U.S. method this jumps to over 12.2million (in 1998!) link 

There are so many example's of how the British system is so much more strict with definitions of Urban Area. I often travel between Hemel Hempstead and London. Hemel is 25minutes by train from London, and it is from my definition (and clearly U.S. as well) as urban the whole way. When it crosses the Greenbelt, for about 3-4minutes on the train, there is only urbanity 1 or 2 levels deep from the road (that is one or two houses). It is still an urban link however, but Hemel's population is not included in the total London Urban Area count, like many other satellite towns with very small breaks forced by the greenbelt.

This is why it is very difficult to compare internationally between different cities. They may use the same terms... "Urban Area", "Metropolitan Area", but they certainly don't use the same criteria for creating them.


----------



## spxy (Apr 9, 2003)

spotila said:


> Is this urban overlay done in googlemaps, or is it just put on afterwards? If so, how? And is it possible in google earth (using a 3rd party overlay of some kind?). That would be a really neat idea, as in google earth it is difficult to determine the urban areas of larger cities due to the difference in photo quality etc.


Hi, the underlying maps are from google maps.I screen capture these then import to photoshop, then scale them to match.The urban area of new york was created by Shiro, and I got the london one from a government web site.
These were then placed on top and scaled.


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

Actually, I didn't create the New York one myself...another forumer did, but it was in a thread I created about selfmade maps.
Most of the maps are mine, take a look:



http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?threadid=44966&


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor (Aug 1, 2005)

*To SHiRO...*

Can you rank your self-made (excluding New York) maps in terms of area covered by the red part. Thanks


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

I could, but you see there are more than 60 maps (a lot of work to put them all in order)and if you visit the thread you can all see them right? 
And it's a bit off topic for me to post all those maps here without something that relates them to metro area, cause these maps reflect urban area rather than metro area.

But you can just quote my posts in that thread and copy/paste the images.
I can post a couple of cities if you tell me which ones you want to see or you can do it yourself if you want...


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor (Aug 1, 2005)

*Ok...*

Ok, here are the cities I would like to ranked in order: New York, Tokyo, Chicago, San Francisco/Sacramento, Los Angeles, Buenos Aires, Sao Paulo, Deltametropolis, Moscow, Washington-Baltimore, Philadelphia, Boston, Dallas/ Fort Worth, Detroit, Miami, Houston, Atlanta, Seattle, Minneapolis/ St. Paul, Phoenix, Cleveland, St. Louis, Cincinnati/ Dayton, Pittsburg, Denver, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, Toronto, and San Juan. Thanks so much...in advance!!!


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor (Aug 1, 2005)

*Tokyo*

Where will *Tokyo* be if the mentioned cities were to be ranked? 

I obviously think it would be in the top 10.  



[me crosing my fingers, Oh please make it bigger than L.A.] Hehehe...


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

If I understand you correctely, you want me to rank the cities according to the amount of build up area on the map ("the red part"), right?

But how would I do that? It's not like I counted pixels for every city... I simply don't know exactely which maps have more red in them. Of course you can clearly see some have more than others but if you want me to tell you if Tokyo has more red or LA, I honestly can't give you an answer...

Besides...a lot of red an less population means less urbanity so it is good if Tokyo has less than LA. It means it is more urban.

Sorry, if I made you think I could do what you asked me before, I didn't get what you were asking...
I can still post the maps if you want, but wouldn't it make more sense to post them according to population?


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor (Aug 1, 2005)

*Anyways...*

Thanks anyway, dud!  Your maps are great!


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

kay:

Thanks!


----------



## IshikawajimaHarima (Aug 3, 2005)

great thread...

viva tokyo.. :cheers:


----------



## Klas (May 16, 2005)

*largest metros for me*

are rhein ruhr boswash , rio sao paulo LA orange county and tokyo


----------



## Tubeman (Sep 12, 2002)

What's with resurrecting 7 month old threads?


----------

