# Spurious claims about London metropolitan area



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

I see the Berlin turned London thread has been conveniently closed by some people who don't like to hear disagreeing facts.

I checked carefully the UK Census 2001 to retrieve commuting figures across southeastern England, and they totally debunk the idea of a large 17 million+ metro area of London. You can double-ckeck figures here.

Here are the facts:
- in Peterborough, located 100 km (62 miles) north of the border of Greater London (as the crow flies), 79.1% residents in employment reported they travelled less than 10 km. (6 miles) to work

- in Cambridge, located 58 km (36 miles) north of the border of Greater London (as the crow flies), 80.3% residents in employment reported they travelled less than 10 km. (6 miles) to work

- in Bedford, located 59 km (37 miles) north of the border of Greater London (as the crow flies), 65.5% residents in employment reported they travelled less than 10 km. (6 miles) to work

- in Oxford, located 55 km (34 miles) northwest of the border of Greater London (as the crow flies), 78.2% residents in employment reported they travelled less than 10 km. (6 miles) to work

- in Northampton, located 78 km (48 miles) northwest of the border of Greater London (as the crow flies), 78.2% residents in employment reported they travelled less than 10 km. (6 miles) to work

- in Brighton and Hove, located 52 km (32 miles) south of the border of Greater London (as the crow flies), 68.8% residents in employment reported they travelled less than 10 km. (6 miles) to work

- in Milton Keynes, located 51 km (32 miles) northwest of the border of Greater London (as the crow flies), 73.8% residents in employment reported they travelled less than 10 km. (6 miles) to work

These Census results prove that none of these cities can be considered part of the metropolitan area of London, no matter what definition you use.


----------



## Metropolitan (Sep 21, 2004)

Brisavoine, the argument used by those advocating a London metro area at 18 million is that even if there are no directly 40% of commuters from those areas to central London, if you make it gradually, you'll find 40% of commuters from Greater London, to a city nearby it, then from that city nearby it to another a bit further from it, and so one and so forth untill Brighton, Peterborough, Cambridge etc...

By using that way of calculation, Paris would have a metropolitan area of 16 million people. That figure is actually an official one from the INSEE to determine the "Espace urbain du Grand Bassin Parisien", or in other words, the metropolitan region in which Paris is part of. However, it's of course completely ridiculous to consider that this "espace urbain" is actually a metropolitan area. Indeed a metropolitan area is about a single urban core surrounded by a sparsely populated periurban belt. It's not about grouping together different specific urban areas, or cities, which are closely related.

I've made a similar thread to yours which is right here : Paris metro area, 16.7 million people ?

The idea of my thread was to prove by the absurd, in using the example of Paris which is well determined by the INSEE statistics, why London metro area could not be at 18 million people. Probably both of our threads should get merged in yours.


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

All figures I listed show that less than 40% (in some cases less than 20%) of people in each of the cities mentioned travel more than 6 miles to work. This basically means that less than 40% of these people work outside of their cities. Therefore, even if you use a gradual approach, there's no way these cities can be considered part of the London metro area.


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

I think most people are more comfortable with the 11 million figure, and eyebrows would raise over an 17 million claim. The quickest way to convince yourself of this is to go to a city like Sao Paolo that actually HAS 19 million people, and you will see London is not anywhere close to 17 million.


----------



## streetscapeer (Apr 30, 2004)

I don't really care that much for metropolitan area population fugures....what's important and cool in my eyes are the urban area populations...

...and of course london's urban area in in not close to 17 million (NY's I think is over 18 million, I could be wrong)

does anyone have any figures for the *urban area populations* of both London and NY?


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

streetscapeer said:


> does anyone have any figures for the *urban area populations* of both London and NY?


Exact numbers are in the Berlin thread that is now locked. Check it. From memory, it's about 18 million in NY, 10.1 million in Paris, and 8.5 million in London.


----------



## sarflonlad (May 13, 2005)

Why are there so many threads on Metros?

It's like a never ending desire to make places seem bigger than they actually are (small dick syndrome if you will....).

No way could you say 17 million people have *direct* influence on London. I should be biased living here, but I can't. It's a ridiculous claim that gets thrown about on these boards so flippantly.


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

streetscapeer said:


> I don't really care that much for metropolitan area population fugures....what's important and cool in my eyes are the urban area populations...
> 
> ...and of course london's urban area in in not close to 17 million (NY's I think is over 18 million, I could be wrong)
> 
> does anyone have any figures for the *urban area populations* of both London and NY?



Yes and no, because you have to keep in mind that since people who live in the metro area work in the city, during the day (and also for the nightlife to a lesser extend), a lot of people you will see in the city will in fact not be from the urban core but from the metro area.


----------



## Englishman (May 3, 2003)

There are still train loads of comuters from towns like Southampton to London. 

Of course towns like Cambridge are not merely housing, they are major employers themselves, and Cambridge has many hi tech jobs, university jobs etc. However you must remember that many people work in health and education and other public services. 

That said, you may not go to london every day, but there's a fair chance that many business men would go to the office in cambridge oxford etc, and then go for an afternoon meeting in the London office, catch a play one evening in the westend, or meet friends for coffee.


----------



## dom (Sep 11, 2002)

I would regard Metropolitan London as the area inside the M25 and the area covered by the Underground. 

Inner London's population is 7.1 million and Outer London's population is 2.3 million people... so the population nudges 10 million for the population inside the M25. That sounds reasonable.


----------



## chicagogeorge (Nov 30, 2004)

*50 Largest World Metropolitan Areas Ranked: 
2000 Estimates * 

*Rank Metropolitan Area Nation Population * 
1 Tokyo-Yokohama Japan 33,190,000 
2 New York United States 21,362,000 
3 Seoul-Inchon South Korea 19,920,000 
4 Mexico City Mexico 19,620,000 
5 Sao Paulo Brazil 17,720,000 
6 Mumbai (Bombay) India 17,580,000 
7 Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto Japan 16,930,000 
8 Los Angeles United States 16,374,000 
9 Manila Phillipines 14,140,000 
10 Cairo Egypt 14,000,000 
11 Calcutta India 13,940,000 
12 Delhi India 13,720,000 
13 Shanghai China 13,580,000 
14 Buenos Aires Argentina 13,390,000 
15 Jakarta Indonesia 13,330,000 
16 Beijing China 13,160,000 
17 Moscow Russia 13,100,000 
18 London United Kingdom 12,130,000 
19 Karachi Pakistan 11,020,000 
20 Rio de Janeiro Brazil 10,810,000 
21 Teheran Iran 10,740,000 
22 Paris France 10,600,000 
23 Istanbul Turkey 10,430,000 
24 Lagos Nigeria 10,030,000 
25 Tianjin China 9,920,000 
26 Chicago United States 9,312,000 
27 Nagoya Japan 8,837,000 
28 Dhaka Bengladesh 8,610,000 
29 Washington-Baltimore United States 7,563,000 
30 Essen-Dusseldorf Germany 7,500,000 
31 Lima Peru 7,420,000 
32 Taipei Taiwan 7,260,000 
33 Bangkok Thailand 7,250,000 
34 San Francisco United States 7,093,000 
35 Bogata Colombia 6,990,000 
36 Chennai (Madras) India 6,700,000 
37 Hong Kong China 6,610,000 
38 Hyderabad India 6,390,000 
39 Lahore Pakistan 5,920,000 
40 Philadelphia United States 5,834,000 
41 Kinshasa Congo 5,750,000 
42 Boston United States 5,716,000 
43 Santiago Chile 5,610,000 
44 Johannesburg South Africa 5,530,000 
45 Toronto-Hamilton-Oshawa Canada 5,470,000 
46 Bangalore India 5,430,000 
47 St. Petersburg Russia 5,410,000 
48 Dallas-Fort Worth United States 5,377,000 
49 Detroit United States 5,358,000 
50 Miami-West Palm Beach United States 5,008,000 
*Source: Prepared by Demographia based upon multiple sources, the most important being national census administrations in the Canada, Japan and the United States, Rand McNally, Thomas Brinkhoff: Principal Agglomerations and Cities of the World and local sources. *


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

On and on and on this argument goes...


----------



## streetscapeer (Apr 30, 2004)

brisavoine said:


> Exact numbers are in the Berlin thread that is now locked. Check it. From memory, it's about 18 million in NY, 10.1 million in Paris, and 8.5 million in London.


thanks a lot for the info, that's what I thought!


----------



## streetscapeer (Apr 30, 2004)

virtual said:


> Yes and no, because you have to keep in mind that since people who live in the metro area work in the city, during the day (and also for the nightlife to a lesser extend), a lot of people you will see in the city will in fact not be from the urban core but from the metro area.


that's true to certain extent, but all the commuters from the metro area aren't going to the core, many are going to the suburbs...


...and when I think about the immensity of a city, I'm not really thinking about the far-flung suburbs and fragments, like Poughkeepsie, NY or Plainfield, NJ....I'm thinking about the huge urban area of the city....In NY most of the nightlife, workforce, etc are coming form the tight-knit urban area of 18 million than the far-flung metro (the extra 4 million that live more than an hour or so that don't really identify with the core city)


----------



## Nick in Atlanta (Nov 5, 2003)

streetscapeer said:


> In NY most of the nightlife, workforce, etc are coming form the tight-knit urban area of 18 million than the far-flung metro (the extra 4 million that live more than an hour or so that *don't really identify with the core city*)


This is a subjective measurement of a city. It's based on people's mental state; those that live more than an hour from the core city (Manhattan) don't identify with it. Yet if you go out to the Hamptons at any time in the summer, especially the very wealthy towns like Southhampton, but also areas on the North Fork, you'll find people who not only identify with Manhattan, but also identify with areas of Manhattan, like Park Avenue.

The same thing for areas of Fairfield County in Connecticut. The wealthy towns have residents who are more than an hour from Manhattan, yet still identify with the core city as they work there. But, there are areas of New Jersey that are less than an hour from Manhattan but people there don't identify with the central core because they are trying to get away from it and Parsippany is as far as they were able to get for now.


----------



## streetscapeer (Apr 30, 2004)

Nick in Atlanta said:


> This is a subjective measurement of a city. It's based on people's mental state; those that live more than an hour from the core city (Manhattan) don't identify with it. Yet if you go out to the Hamptons at any time in the summer, especially the very wealthy towns like Southhampton, but also areas on the North Fork, you'll find people who not only identify with Manhattan, but also identify with areas of Manhattan, like Park Avenue.
> 
> The same thing for areas of Fairfield County in Connecticut. The wealthy towns have residents who are more than an hour from Manhattan, yet still identify with the core city as they work there. But, there are areas of New Jersey that are less than an hour from Manhattan but people there don't identify with the central core because they are trying to get away from it and Parsippany is as far as they were able to get for now.



fair enough, that statement was more speaking about generalities not the specifics of NY... it's a simple generality, people outside the urban area don't identify with the urban area as much as those within...of course there are going to be interesting quirks like vacation spots for the rich people of the core, or when a stateline cuts through your urban area, etc.


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

It depends, for Paris as an example, I live in the outer southern suburbs, and a lot of people here feel connected to the city of Paris, they only moved because of unafordable housing prices. Given that in a lot of inner cities in the world housing is getting more and more expencive, this must not be an exeption


----------



## Skabbymuff (Mar 4, 2006)

this is going on a bit i feel. londons just another great city. it just happens to be the largest in europe, and a pretty cool place too. there are so many big and cool places all over the planet, why cant we just leave it at that?


----------



## Skabbymuff (Mar 4, 2006)

and while im at it, MANY other cities are as guilty of boosting their figures, not just london, this thread is a heap of sh.....


----------



## The Hunted (Jan 12, 2006)

dom said:


> I would regard Metropolitan London as the area inside the M25 and the area covered by the Underground.


Underground, yes.
M25 area,no - it's to rural in parts.


----------



## streetscapeer (Apr 30, 2004)

virtual said:


> It depends, for Paris as an example, I live in the outer southern suburbs, and a lot of people here feel connected to the city of Paris, they only moved because of unafordable housing prices. Given that in a lot of inner cities in the world housing is getting more and more expencive, this must not be an exeption




Let me try to put it another way, let's say I live in the main urban area of a metropolitan area (defined by commuting patterns, economics etc). As I come home from a very long road-trip I pass a commuter town (of 20,000 residents or so) 15-20 miles from the southern edge of the main urban area of the metro area where me and 8 million other souls live, work, eat, party, etc....I'm presuming that most people who live in the urban area won't really feel "at home" passing through the small commuter town, not until they reach the miles and miles of homes and shops and denser infratructure, 4 lane highways, buses (all the way to the core and beyond)....this is what I'm talking about, there's a mental/physical connection that binds the urban area together, that doesn't exist (or exists to a lesser extent) in far-flung suburbs 80 minutes from the core or commuter towns miles away form the urban area.


this is why I like urban area population figures better, it gives you a better idea of the _immensity_ and _intensity_ of the civilization or settlement...an idea which is not as clear using metropolitan figures, (i.e. Altanta)


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

Again that depends on the city, for some inner city parisians, as soon as they cross the "périphérique" (ring road around the city of Paris) and are in the inner suburbs, it is like if they where in another world, somewhere in deep provincial france plus the projects, when they would still remain more or less in the heart of the urban area, a few kilometres away from where they live.


----------



## Skabbymuff (Mar 4, 2006)

> Underground, yes





> M25 area,no - it's to rural in parts


ABSOLUTE HASH mate, do u live in London, do you know it? the underground serves mainly the north of the city. south, we have i believe only under 30 stations (may be more due to jubilee extensions now). you can take the underground out to the most bumpkin rural areas to the north, however down south, you will only get as far as wimbledon or richmond, zones 4, well inside london. the tube is NO WAY a guide to greater london city, as it may as well not even exist south of the river, we have the vast commuter rail networks and the trams to take care of us. this version of london you propose would exclude half of the city! id be much more inclined to follow the 'within the m25 area' method than follow the tube map, any day. yet, you are right also, some areas within the m25 can be pretty rural.


----------



## streetscapeer (Apr 30, 2004)

virtual said:


> Again that depends on the city, for some inner city parisians, as soon as they cross the "périphérique" (ring road around the city of Paris) and are in the inner suburbs, it is like if they where in another world, somewhere in deep provincial france plus the projects, when they would still remain more or less in the heart of the urban area, a few kilometres away from where they live.



well, it would then be like if they were in another galaxy if there were in a commuter town surrounding Paris. when they cross the périphérique, I'm sure there is still cheap public transpotation that can take them back home, right.
of course this deals with degrees of identification, I indentify more with my street than with my neighborhood, and with the latter more than the downtown, and with that, more than some commuter town...Of course for many people living in Manhattan, even Brooklyn seems like "a world away" as well but in general there's a connection one feels with the urban area as whole that many commuter towns don't really feel. The only thing that links a metro area together is a commute ....the urban area is so much more linked and shares so much more (even when you forget about how people identify). you don't really comprehend the immensity and girth of a city with commuting patterns. I can't say what the situation is like in Paris specifically(never lived there), but I feel this is how it works in general. (also when you live in the innercity of any city that gives you more liberty to only identify with the core and nothing outside that core, while the situation may be somewhat different in the general urban area (not the main core))


----------



## Skabbymuff (Mar 4, 2006)

damn... got sucked in already.. hehehe...


----------



## Metropolitan (Sep 21, 2004)

Englishman said:


> There are still train loads of comuters from towns like Southampton to London.
> 
> Of course towns like Cambridge are not merely housing, they are major employers themselves, and Cambridge has many hi tech jobs, university jobs etc. However you must remember that many people work in health and education and other public services.
> 
> That said, you may not go to london every day, but there's a fair chance that many business men would go to the office in cambridge oxford etc, and then go for an afternoon meeting in the London office, catch a play one evening in the westend, or meet friends for coffee.


That's exactly the same with Paris and cities such as Chartres, Rouen, Evreux, Beauvais or Orléans. Those cities are reached by the Transilien suburban rails, but they aren't part of the Paris metro area. The fact they are economically closely connected to Paris makes of them satellite cities perhaps, but certainly not part of the periurban belt. They all have their proper metro area. Just like Southampton, Brighton or Cambridge around London.


----------



## Dezz (Mar 11, 2005)

chicagogeorge said:


> *50 Largest World Metropolitan Areas Ranked:
> 2000 Estimates *
> 
> *Rank Metropolitan Area Nation Population *
> ...


This list is incorrect! Where is Randstad Holland in The Netherlands with some 7 to 8 million inhabitants?


----------



## Metropolitan (Sep 21, 2004)

Dezz said:


> This list is incorrect! Where is Randstad Holland in The Netherlands with some 7 to 8 million inhabitants?


Demographia is well-known for its bias towards London. Usually, all other European cities are well undervalued in Demographia stats.

Check for instance the Paris metropolitan area which is officially determined by the INSEE at 11.5 million people. Despite this official figure, Demographia records strictly the Paris urban area (10.1 million people) as its metropolitan area. There's inherently no argument to consider this as such.


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

I think one of the big problems when comparing the population of cities is that the territories compared can have very different land areas, which tend to skew comparisons. An example of this is when Londoners compare the population of the very large administrative territory of Greater London (1,579 sq. km/609 sq. miles) with the population of the much smaller administrative territory of NYC (785 sq. km/303 sq. miles), and so they end up with claims that somehow London has almost as many inhabitants as New York.

Some time ago I calculated some statistics which you may find interesting. I wanted to compare populations within territories with exact same land area.

According to official estimates, in 2000 there were 7,236,700 people living within the 1579 sq. km of Greater London.

In Paris, I added all the communes around Notre Dame cathedral until I obtained an area covering 1579 sq. km of land, and according to the 1999 French census there were 8,105,729 people living within these 1579 sq. km. 

Then in New York I took all counties around the Empire State Building until I obtained an area covering 1576 sq. km of land, and according to the 2000 US Census there were 10,287,378 people living within these 1576 sq. km.


----------



## Mr Bricks (May 6, 2005)

I still think the 13 million figure for the London metro is wrong. It´s hard to define the metro area but it has to be bigger than that..


----------



## Metropolitan (Sep 21, 2004)

SuomiPoika said:


> I still think the 13 million figure for the London metro is wrong. It´s hard to define the metro area but it has to be bigger than that..


On which ground would it ? The London urban area represents approximately 8.5 million people, however, that figure is limited by the green belt which is approximately at the same level as the M25 motorway. Outside this, there are numerous towns which could be considered as belonging to London metro area, however, 13 million people is already an extensive figure as it encompasses 4.5 million people living outside of the London urban area.

As a matter of comparison, the NYC urban area represents 17.8 million people and its metropolitan area represents 21.2 million people. The urban area of NYC is quite extensive as there's nearly nothing done in the US to limit the extension of the urban sprawl. I guess that's because of that size that we can still find 3.4 million people living in the periurban belt of the NYC urban area which are encompassed into its metropolitan area.

Another comparison would be Paris. The Paris urban area represents 10.1 million people (2005 estimate) and its metropolitan area represents 11.5 million people. Of course, there's no green belt around Paris so it's natural that the metro area is relatively smaller than the one of London.

Anyway, the point of that comparison is simply that NYC periurban belt represents 16% of the population of the metro area, the Paris periurban belt represents 12% of the population of the metro area, and in considering the London metro area at 13 million people (which is the max estimate), the London periurban belt would represent 35% of the population of the metro area, which is already a very big number.


----------



## polako (Apr 7, 2005)

Metropolitan said:


> On which ground would it ? The London urban area represents approximately 8.5 million people, however, that figure is limited by the green belt which is approximately at the same level as the M25 motorway. Outside this, there are numerous towns which could be considered as belonging to London metro area, however, 13 million people is already an extensive figure as it encompasses 4.5 million people living outside of the London urban area.
> 
> As a matter of comparison, the NYC urban area represents 17.8 million people and its metropolitan area represents 21.2 million people. The urban area of NYC is quite extensive as there's nearly nothing done in the US to limit the extension of the urban sprawl. I guess that's because of that size that we can still find 3.4 million people living in the periurban belt of the NYC urban area which are encompassed into its metropolitan area.
> 
> ...


That's a pretty good analysis. Anyway, I think London's metro #s are really inflated. 10.5 million seems reasonable for the London Metro. There is no way 18 or 13 million in its metro. How can periphery make up 1/3 or 1/2 of a Metro's population? Even in Los Angeles the periphery makes up only 20% of the metro's population.


----------



## Cyril (Sep 11, 2002)

According to GEMACA :

Paris metro area = 12 million
London metro area = 13 million

End of the story...


----------



## Metropolitan (Sep 21, 2004)

polako said:


> That's a pretty good analysis. Anyway, I think London's metro #s are really inflated. 10.5 million seems reasonable for the London Metro. There is no way 18 or 13 million in its metro. How can periphery make up 1/3 or 1/2 of a Metro's population? Even in Los Angeles the periphery makes up only 20% of the metro's population.


The thing is that the London stats are all screwed up because of the Green belt which has been created with as purpose to limit the sprawl. That sprawl has finally continued to devellop beyond that green belt, and as such some of London "suburbs" are artificially cut out from London by that belt. As such, it's rather natural to imagine London periurban belt being larger than those of NYC, LA or Paris, which are not limited by such a green belt. Hence, I believe that estimations of the London metro area from 12 to 13 million people are rather reasonable. But once again, it's just a guess... some unofficial studies have been made on that topic and they disagree with each others. This being said, those estimations are all from 11 to 14 million people. Hence I believe the real figure shouldn't be far from the one posted on the world-gazetteer website, which is of 12.5 million people.

Anyway, these are just statistics... considering this as being part of a metro or that as not being part of it doesn't have any real influence on everyday life.


----------



## Metropolitan (Sep 21, 2004)

Cyril said:


> According to GEMACA :
> 
> Paris metro area = 12 million
> London metro area = 13 million
> ...


Sorry I hadn't seen your post before posting. Where have you found those GEMACA estimates ?


----------



## nick_taylor (Mar 7, 2003)

So let me get this straight, the London metro according to you two experts is at 13mn. Right let me expand upon this....

*Population*
New York - 21mn
London - 13mn
Paris - 11.5mn

*Economy (2002)*
New York - $810bn
London - $534bn
Paris - $444bn

*Per Capita*
London - $41,076
Paris - $38,608
New York - $38,571

So basically, although New York's metro is more populated and has the larger economy; per capita its the 'poorest' of the three with London leaving the two other cities behind?

I could live with a metro of 18mn or 17mn for London - but being better off/more productive suits me fine! 


*Density*
London: 1,040/km²
Paris - 946/km²
New York: 684/km²

Also looks like London and its surroundings is also far denser than New Yorks' and Paris'. Now this is what happens when you build to much suburban housing Paris and New York! Learn from London: build medium-density across a larger area instead of high-density then nothing but sprawl. :yes: :laugh:


Sources: Eurostat, Mike-Hunt and Metropolitan (figures are approx; to 1% dif)


Ah so much fun and its only a Wednesday! But on a serious note, London didn't develop like Paris or New York and Metropolitan: don't confuse all of the South-East as the metro of London, especially as it only occupies one side of the area around London and most of that isn't inhabited.


----------



## nick_taylor (Mar 7, 2003)

You see this is a dilemma you both now face: if you decrease the population of a London metro, you boost the per capita figure. If you were to do the opposite, the per capita would fall.

Yet as you have indirectly proven, London is:
a) Wealthier
b) Denser

Care to reflect upon this (afterall it was Mike that provided the figures in the first place ) chums?


:laugh:


----------



## kind (Jan 11, 2004)

Metropolitan said:


> As a matter of comparison, the NYC urban area represents 17.8 million people and its metropolitan area represents 21.2 million people.


Do you realize that this metropolitan area is a CSA (Combined Statistical Area), which consists of several MSAs?


----------



## Newcastle Guy (Jul 8, 2005)

Heres how I see it....



So?

London is still the first or second greatest city in the world, has been burned to the ground TWICE and risen to become even better, and current estimates show it will overtake New York as the financial centre of the world, as apparently it is becoming a more desirable destination for foreign (especially American) companies. And it's getting lot's of cool new skylines, and the 2012 olympics after compiling the best bid in history.


----------



## grachtengordeldier (Mar 7, 2006)

Like someone said here before...sometimes people want to make cities bigger than they really are (small dick syndrome)?
I have read on the Dutch forum people say Randstad is one 'city like thing' with 7.000.000 people. Still, Amsterdam has only 750.000 inhabitants, Rotterdam 600.000.
Both having an agglo of a little bit over 1 million. 
I call this biassed (or how do you write it?) megalomane bullshit.
And London does not have 17.000.000 inhabitants, sorrie.


----------

