# the 15 biggest agglomerations in 2050 ?



## Azia (Nov 18, 2007)

what will be the 15 biggest agglomerations in 2050 ,i think there a a few surprises in this time .

So this is my list :

1.) Mumbai (Bombay ) 40 million in agglomeration 16 million city proper 

2.) Dhaka (bangladesch) 39 million agglo , 12 million city proper 

3.) Delhi 38 million agglo ,20 million city proper 

4.) Shanghai 35 million agglo , 20 million city proper 

5.) Mexico city (DF) 33 million agglo, 20 million city proper 

6.) Tokyo 30 milion, agglo 6 million city proper (it will shrink) 

7.) Jakarta 29 million agglo , 12 million city proper

8.) Manila 28 million agglo ,9 million city proper

9.) Los Angeles 27 million agglo ,6 million city proper

10) Guangzhou 27 million incl.foshan 

11.) NYC 25 million agglo ,12 million city proper

12.) Lagos 25 million agglo ,??

13.) Karatchi 25 million agglo ,??

14.) Seoul 22 million ,city proper 5 million (it shrink) 

15.) Sao Paulo 22 million ,city proper 13 milion

i think this numbers are thinkable .whats youre numbers??


----------



## Wunderknabe (Jun 29, 2010)

For comparison, the top15 of 2007 (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agglomeration ;english site has newer data but only top10) :


```
1	Tokio		33,4 Mio.	
2	Seoul		23,2 Mio.
3	Mexiko-Stadt	22,1 Mio.	
4	New York	21,8 Mio.	
5	Mumbai		21,3 Mio.	
6	Delhi		21,1 Mio.	
7	São Paulo	20,4 Mio.	
8	Los Angeles	17,9 Mio.	
9	Shanghai	17,3 Mio.		
10	Osaka		16,6 Mio.	
11	Kairo		15,9 Mio.	
12	Kolkata		15,5 Mio.	
13	Manila		15,4 Mio.	
14	Jakarta		14,9 Mio.	
15	Karatschi	14,8 Mio.
```


----------



## earthJoker (Dec 15, 2004)

Well maybe some metropolitan area within the blue banana could merge into a huge agglomeration within 40 years. But that depends on immigration as this regions don't grow by births anymore.


----------



## KillerZavatar (Jun 22, 2010)

guangzhou has big chances i guess considering it merges with foshan and other cities are near too


----------



## hudkina (Oct 28, 2003)

earthJoker said:


> Well maybe some metropolitan area within the blue banana could merge into a huge agglomeration within 40 years. But that depends on immigration as this regions don't grow by births anymore.


Then it would be a conurbation, not an agglomeration. Nerd!


----------



## GSAA (Nov 2, 2009)

Azia said:


> 8.) Manila 28 million agglo ,9 million city proper


:lol:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manila -> Manila has an area of 38.55 sq km.

9 000 000 / 38.55 = 233 463.035 people per sq km

That's nearly nine times as densely populated as today's Manhattan 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan).


----------



## Bricken Ridge (Feb 16, 2008)

^^The keyword is agglomeration, not city limits. Right now, the agglomeration is approx 23 million. The conurbation of MegaManila is close to 40 million.


----------



## earthJoker (Dec 15, 2004)

hudkina said:


> Then it would be a conurbation, not an agglomeration. Nerd!


Nah we already have conurbations in the Blua Banana. In 40 years we could see further integration around one middle sized centre to form a big centre.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

Well, those are my thoughts, numbers are metropolitan areas and city population in brackets.

Pearl River Delta 65 million
Dhaka 60 million
Delhi 55 million
Karachi 50 million
Manila 50 million (10 million in Metro Manila)
Mumbai 45 million
Cairo 40 million
Tokyo 40 million (10 million)
Jakarta 40 million (10 million)
Lagos 40 million
Beijing 35 million
Shanghai 35 million
Mexico City 30 million (10 million)
Sao Paulo 30 million (12 million)
Seoul 30 million (11 million) I'm sure we'll have a united Korea in 2050


----------



## memph (Dec 11, 2010)

You guys think Dhaka will grow so much? It's really vulnerable to flooding, whether it's due to global warming or plain old typhoons/moonsoon, or it could just sink under it's own weight. Or it could just sink under it's own weight. Shanghai was sinking by 10cm per year at one point, which is 4m in 40 years at that rate. Dhaka is 4m above sea level. Now Dhaka might not be sinking as fast since Shanghai's sinking was largely due to its consumption of groundwater, but it's also something that should be taken into consideration. And Bangladesh is really crowded and poor already, does it produce enough food to substain a city of 60 million?...


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

memph said:


> You guys think Dhaka will grow so much? It's really vulnerable to flooding, whether it's due to global warming or plain old typhoons/moonsoon, or it could just sink under it's own weight. Or it could just sink under it's own weight. Shanghai was sinking by 10cm per year at one point, which is 4m in 40 years at that rate. Dhaka is 4m above sea level. Now Dhaka might not be sinking as fast since Shanghai's sinking was largely due to its consumption of groundwater, but it's also something that should be taken into consideration. And Bangladesh is really crowded and poor already, does it produce enough food to substain a city of 60 million?...


Well, the reason for Dhaka in the list is that currently it's the second fastest growing megacity after Karachi. There are reasons to believe that Bangladesh's economy will accelerate over the next decades. Currently it's already growing at 6% per year. So will the urbanisation of the country accelerate. Dhaka is the most important city by far for currently 150 million people. In the future, it will be for 250 million. Just because Bangladesh is so densely populated, the number of big cities is very small. Look at South Korea, half of the population lives in their biggest metro area. Bangladesh is the same size, so I asume that Dhaka will grow ever more important in the country. 

Bangladesh is now 6 times richer than it was in 1971. The country is populated very dense and developing. In the future, they can afford huge dams and other things we might don't know by now that will protect Bngladesh from more floodings.


----------



## memph (Dec 11, 2010)

Chrissib said:


> Well, the reason for Dhaka in the list is that currently it's the second fastest growing megacity after Karachi. There are reasons to believe that Bangladesh's economy will accelerate over the next decades. Currently it's already growing at 6% per year. So will the urbanisation of the country accelerate. Dhaka is the most important city by far for currently 150 million people. In the future, it will be for 250 million. Just because Bangladesh is so densely populated, the number of big cities is very small. Look at South Korea, half of the population lives in their biggest metro area. Bangladesh is the same size, so I asume that Dhaka will grow ever more important in the country.
> 
> Bangladesh is now 6 times richer than it was in 1971. The country is populated very dense and developing. In the future, they can afford huge dams and other things we might don't know by now that will protect Bngladesh from more floodings.


I'm not sure there is a single country which had it's GDP shrink from 1971 to 2009. Even Somalia had its GDP increase almost 3 fold. I just calculated the GDP per capita increase of about a dozen countries over that period, and Bangladesh was pretty close to the bottom. Unfortunately firefox crashed so I wasn't able to post it. But, I do remember Bangladesh had a roughly 4.5 fold increase. Countries like Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, China, Malaysia, Thailand and Brazil all increased their GDP per capita more than 15fold. Canada, US and Germany all increased their GDP per capita by 8.5 to 11 fold. Several African countries like Egypt, Nigeria, Sudan, Kenya and Rwanda as well as India increase about 10 fold. Even Iraq increased by around 5-6 fold. 

The countries that did worse than Bangladesh were Somalia, Ghana, Afghanistan and Niger. Their Muslim brother to the West in Pakistan increased their GDP per capita by 5.63.

Based on this, I would rate Bangladesh's economy as struggling. Maybe if we look less far in the past, or if you can convince me that there is a better measurement than growth in GDP per capita, they won't look as bad.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

memph said:


> I'm not sure there is a single country which had it's GDP shrink from 1971 to 2009. Even Somalia had its GDP increase almost 3 fold. I just calculated the GDP per capita increase of about a dozen countries over that period, and Bangladesh was pretty close to the bottom. Unfortunately firefox crashed so I wasn't able to post it. But, I do remember Bangladesh had a roughly 4.5 fold increase. Countries like Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, China, Malaysia, Thailand and Brazil all increased their GDP per capita more than 15fold. Canada, US and Germany all increased their GDP per capita by 8.5 to 11 fold. Several African countries like Egypt, Nigeria, Sudan, Kenya and Rwanda as well as India increase about 10 fold. Even Iraq increased by around 5-6 fold.
> 
> The countries that did worse than Bangladesh were Somalia, Ghana, Afghanistan and Niger. Their Muslim brother to the West in Pakistan increased their GDP per capita by 5.63.
> 
> Based on this, I would rate Bangladesh's economy as struggling. Maybe if we look less far in the past, or if you can convince me that there is a better measurement than growth in GDP per capita, they won't look as bad.


You're right that Bangladesh struggled in the past. After independence, GDP growth struggled at 4%, so per capita growth was 2%. But since then, the economy has accelerated very smoothly to a 6% growth. Population growth is now at 1.5%, so now the per capita growth has doubled from 2% in the 70s to 4.5% now. The IMF predicts that Bangladesh will accelerate further to 7% growth over the next 5 years. The country is catching up and benefiting from the boom in India. 

When China will slow and itself out-source production, Bangladesh will for sure be one of the countries where industry will move to.


----------



## memph (Dec 11, 2010)

Chrissib said:


> You're right that Bangladesh struggled in the past. After independence, GDP growth struggled at 4%, so per capita growth was 2%. But since then, the economy has accelerated very smoothly to a 6% growth. Population growth is now at 1.5%, so now the per capita growth has doubled from 2% in the 70s to 4.5% now. The IMF predicts that Bangladesh will accelerate further to 7% growth over the next 5 years. The country is catching up and benefiting from the boom in India.
> 
> When China will slow and itself out-source production, Bangladesh will for sure be one of the countries where industry will move to.


Because I find these numbers interesting, I'll recalculate them when I have a bit of time. Do you think 1999 to 2009 would be a good time range?


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

GSAA said:


> :lol:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manila -> Manila has an area of 38.55 sq km.
> 
> ...


When we talk about Manila we are more talking about *Metro Manila* which is the city proper.

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

Which has a population of around 11,553,427 and an area of 638.55 km2. Its density is around 18,093.2/km2

Its neighbouring suburbs and outskirts will double or even triple both area and population.

Manila (city) only has a population of 1,660,714 and an area of 38.55 km2. Its density is around 43,079/km2

Nevertheless, it is still one of the densest cities in the world.


----------



## abrandao (Sep 8, 2006)

More than *28 million* people already live within a distance of 130km from downtown *Sao Paulo*.

For 2050, I believe that there will be at least 35 million people living in this area. Not to mention that it is very likely that by 2050 the megalopolis Sao Paulo - Rio de Janeiro will be a reality with at least 55 million inhabitants.


----------



## BE0GRAD (May 29, 2010)

I'm still confused how a country like Bangladesh could sustain 250 milion people ,especialy when taking into account that urbanisation of Daka and other cities reduce arable surfaces.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

BE0GRAD said:


> I'm still confused how a country like Bangladesh could sustain 250 milion people ,especialy when taking into account that urbanisation of Daka and other cities reduce arable surfaces.


At least until now, the surface area of Dhaka is very small. The 14 million people of the metropolitan area live on roughly 300km² (estimated by me using google earth). That makes an urban density of just below 50,000 people/km² which is one of the highest levels on earth and 50 times the overall density of the country.
The United States have an urban density of 2,000/km² and a overall population density of 34/km². That is 70 times the overall density. Bangladesh's cities occupy only a little higer share of the area than the American cities. So I don't think that urbanisation will create land-problems. 

In addition to that, land is far more valuable in Bangladesh than in the USA, so land reclamation from the sea will be very lucrative, especially to built new cities, industry and ports on it.


----------



## ptustephen (Apr 18, 2011)

Guangzhou 27 million incl.foshan 
? too many,you make huge assumption


----------



## Axelferis (Jan 18, 2008)

earthJoker said:


> Well maybe some metropolitan area within the blue banana could merge into a huge agglomeration within 40 years. But that depends on immigration as this regions don't grow by births anymore.


Blue banana:

London,brussels,Amsterdam, Paris,Milano

this arc?


----------



## KillerZavatar (Jun 22, 2010)

Axelferis said:


> Blue banana:
> 
> London,brussels,Amsterdam, Paris,Milano
> 
> this arc?


and the complete economic zone of northrhine westfalia and the frankfurt area


----------



## Eduardo L. Ramirez (Jul 24, 2008)

But no Paris: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Banana


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

abrandao said:


> More than *28 million* people already live within a distance of 130km from downtown *Sao Paulo*.
> 
> For 2050, I believe that there will be at least 35 million people living in this area. Not to mention that it is very likely that by 2050 the megalopolis Sao Paulo - Rio de Janeiro will be a reality with at least 55 million inhabitants.


Not in a dream.

The concept of urban agglomeration is fluid, and I do not want do descend into faux-technicality debate over them. However, Sao Paulo has physical, geological restrictions for that "merge" ever happening.


----------



## kerouac1848 (Jun 9, 2009)

i've always thought the Blue Banana is misleading: there are large tracts of nothingness in parts whilst the Southern part is quite separated from the Northern part (and feels it). It isn't seamless in the way the Eastern Seaboard is in the US. Also, it is not a complete land transport network in terms of connections.

Far better, IMO, is to view a sort of NW European 'diamond' with Brussels at the centre. North is Amsterdam and the Randstad; South is metro-Paris; West is London and its commuter belt; East is the Rhine-Ruhr. This cluster features Europe's economic, political, cultural, art, industrial and logistical centres (two busiest ports and passenger airports). It is the heartbeat and driver of the EU and is densely populated with few large tracts of real countryside. It is soon to feature the continent's first true transnational HS rail network when London gets direct access to the Netherlands and NW Germany (Cologne as gateway). This will mean you can go from any point to any other directly.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

kerouac1848 said:


> It is soon to feature the continent's first true transnational HS rail network when London gets direct access to the Netherlands and NW Germany (Cologne as gateway). This will mean you can go from any point to any other directly.


Not really. There are no plans to link Antwerpen to Bruxelles with high-speed tracks, for instance, neither are plans to connect Amsterdam with Germany with truly high-speed (250km/h+) tracks anytime soon.


----------



## kerouac1848 (Jun 9, 2009)

The majority of the route between Brussels and Amsterdam is over 250km, and if you read what I said, I was referring to the *points *connecting, not cities or places within, so it's irreverent concerning Antwerp. 

I was wrong about Amsterdam to the Rhine-Ruhr though.


----------



## abrandao (Sep 8, 2006)

Suburbanist said:


> Not in a dream.
> 
> The concept of urban agglomeration is fluid, and I do not want do descend into faux-technicality debate over them. However, Sao Paulo has physical, geological restrictions for that "merge" ever happening.


It is not a dream. It is all true. There are already more than 28 million people living within a distance of less than 130 km of downtown Sao Paulo.

And what makes you think that megalopolises must be 100% of urban area???? Sorry, but if you think so, you are way too mistaken...


----------



## HRLR (Aug 2, 2008)

abrandao said:


> It is not a dream. It is all true. There are already more than 28 million people living within a distance of less than 130 km of downtown Sao Paulo.
> 
> And what makes you think that megalopolises must be 100% of urban area???? Sorry, but if you think so, you are way too mistaken...


I agree. New York Metropolitan Area, for example, includes New Haven, 100 miles away from NYC.


----------



## Wunderknabe (Jun 29, 2010)

abrandao said:


> It is not a dream. It is all true. There are already more than 28 million people living within a distance of less than 130 km of downtown Sao Paulo.
> 
> And what makes you think that megalopolises must be 100% of urban area???? Sorry, but if you think so, you are way too mistaken...


Well, the Thread asks for Agglomerations. A Agglomeration is a continuity of urban space.


----------



## sweet-d (Jul 20, 2010)

Chrissib said:


> The United States have an urban density of 2,000/km² and a overall population density of 34/km². That is 70 times the overall density. Bangladesh's cities occupy only a little higer share of the area than the American cities. So I don't think that urbanisation will create land-problems.
> In addition to that, land is far more valuable in Bangladesh than in the USA, so land reclamation from the sea will be very lucrative, especially to built new cities, industry and ports on it.


I'm not sure the U.S. would be country to compare to Bangladesh the state where i live(oklahoma) is larger than bangladesh and has a little under 4 million people. I don't think bangladesh can support 250 million people. You left out the fact that the area of bangladesh's metropolitan areas will grow a lot and you can only reclaim so much land from the sea. It will be very hard for bangladesh to urbanize without a lot of land being grabbed for high rise apartments and many other urban developments.


----------



## abrandao (Sep 8, 2006)

Wunderknabe said:


> Well, the Thread asks for Agglomerations. A Agglomeration is a continuity of urban space.


No it is not. Agglomeration is not conurbation. hno:


----------



## memph (Dec 11, 2010)

GDP per capita growth from 1999 to 2009:








Legend:

Dark Maroon: 650-900% (ex Angola)
Maroon: 400-650% (ex Russia)
Dark Red: 300-400% (ex China)
Red: 200-300% (ex Indonesia)
Light Red: 150-200% (ex India)
Peach: 120-150% (ex Brazil)
Yellow: 100-120% (ex Turkey)
Greeny-Yellow: 80-100% (ex Canada)
Green: 70-80% (ex France)
Dark Green: 60-70% (ex Bangladesh)
Light Blue: 30-60% (ex USA)
Blue: 0-30% (ex Japan)
Dark Blue: -20-0% (ex Argentina)

So even in the last 10 years, Bangladesh hasn't been doing so hot. Based on population growth, wealth increases and size of existing cities, I would say:

1. New Delhi (50 million)
2. Tokyo (40 million)
3. Bombay (38 million)
4. Sao Paulo (36 million)
5. New York City-Philadelphia (35 million)
6. Kolkatta (30 million)
7. Jakarta (28 million)
8. Shanghai (28 million)
9. Mexico City (28 million)
10. Karachi (27 million)
11. Dkaha (22 million)
12. Rio de Janeiro (22 million)
13. Los Angeles (20 million)
14. Manilla (20 million)
15. Lagos (20 million)


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

Pearl River Delta, which is already *contiguous* with the cities of Shenzhen, 
Guangzhou and Dongguan (check it out on Google Earth) already counts 30 million as 
one conurbation (and doesnt include HK), with 45 million in an area the size of LA, and 
growing (the largest metro currently being built, twice as large as any other even 
conceived to connect them all up).










urban satellite pic here, after and before (and bear in mind the after shot is near 10 years old already):

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=7949












Meanwhile the Yangtze River Delta is the worlds largest concentration of adjacent 
conurbations, and each rapidly growing, which counts 90 million of which 50 million
are urbanites:










The 'countryside' in this area is made up of hundreds of km of China's richest peasants
and looks like this (some 'villages' even have supertalls), hence why it may take 30 minutes
on high speed rail to pull into Shanghai, but an hour of deceptive 'cityscape' to pull into the
much smaller Hangzhou.










(^note the fields and lack of roads)

This is the monster in its reality (with only the densest areas lit up, not the countryside):


----------



## Tom_Green (Sep 4, 2004)

spliff: I took the train from Hong Kong to Guangzhou and from Shanghai to Nanjing. It doesn`t feel like one city.

I think no city will be able to beat the urban feeling of Tokyo in the next 20 years. The city is just too big. 

Number two will be interesting. Could be Osaka, Shanghai or Seoul.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

Take the train from the other direction from Hangzhou (actually about a few hours south from Hangzhou) to Shanghai. It took me about 5 years to find out the ginormous city, that stretched for hundreds of km, had been 'countryside' (and hence why Hangzhou in my mind seemed the larger city).

As for Shenzhen (not HK, its not included), a massive coastal strip connects it up to Dongguan and Guangzhou. Its actually contiguous (completely joined up, no gaps), you can check it out on Google Earth. The train of course doesnt hug the coastline or the urban belts, but cuts direct across farmland between the cities (same applies to the Shanghai-Nanjing line I would think).


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

According to absolute number-growth, Delhi is one of the fastest growing metro areas on Earth. Anyway, here's a map I made showing all metropolitan areas above 2 million inhabitants and their annual growth over the last years (usually since the last census):










Source: citypopulation.de 

Definitions: by myself


----------



## Bricken Ridge (Feb 16, 2008)

^^nice work. i reckon the chinese cities high growth is from emigration and not from high birth rates.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Tom_Green said:


> spliff: I took the train from Hong Kong to Guangzhou and from Shanghai to Nanjing. It doesn`t feel like one city.
> 
> I think no city will be able to beat the urban feeling of Tokyo in the next 20 years. The city is just too big.
> 
> Number two will be interesting. Could be Osaka, Shanghai or Seoul.


I agree with Tokyo's massive size. There is a possibility that Shanghai or Seoul could be next.


----------



## aaabbbccc (Mar 8, 2009)

cool map 
I see that in my country , Rabat ( 1.8 million in the metro area ) is growing faster than Casablanca ( 4.5 million in the metro area )
another interesting thing which I do not understand , Rabat metro region is actually larger in size than Casablanca


----------



## SoroushPersepolisi (Apr 17, 2010)

it disgusts me to see this, why do some of you sound proud to see such disaster happen to your nations?


----------



## gabrielbabb (Aug 11, 2006)

Yuri S Andrade said:


> ^^
> How can San Diego e Tijuana be part of the same metropolitan area? Do they form a single labour market? Of course not. In that respect, Boston is closer to San Diego than Tijuana is. There ia wall between them.


All border cities in USA and Mexico are a single market, a lot of people living in the mexican cities work in the border city of USA, and the other way around too, a great part of my family do this.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

pesto said:


> You have remarkable knowledge of the future!
> 
> If you will note WANCH's map, 5 of the regions are multi-national. World-wide there are many more. Your approach is not only arbitrary but doesn't comport with economic and social reality.


If you watch closely, you can see that WANCHs map is about mega-regions, which are made of several metropolitan areas each. The reality is that there is a border and a wall.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

Yörch said:


> ^^There is a single labor market. Lots of Mexicans work legally in San Diego while living in Tijuana and some Americans do their lives in a similar way. I used to live in Tijuana and had a crossing visa. I crossed the border almost daily to go shopping, movies or meet with frieds.
> 
> There are also plans of both governments to build in Tijuana a secondary airport for San Diego...


Really? So everybody in Tijuana or Ciudad Juárez can work in the US freely? If I move to Tijuana like tomorrow, can I get a job in San Diego on the next day?


----------



## anak_mm (Apr 8, 2011)

Chrissib said:


> Tijuana is in Mexico. It wil always be counted as a different metropolitan area. Metropolitan areas have to be in the same country.


metro SD-TJ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Diego–Tijuana

tijuana with downtown san diego on the background, from this _single photo_it doesnt look like its 2 countries lol

San Diego desde Tijuana by Hotu Matua, on Flickr

border

Tijuana Estuary by Miggy Chan, on Flickr
i tried doing this too!

Fence 3 by mazie73, on Flickr

tijuanans relaxing at the border

Tijuana Beach Goers by The Dalai Lomo, on Flickr

i know many people who lives in TJ & work in SD legally(or vice versa) they just cross the border everyday. some study in the US & some just go shopping in SD then go back to TJ

i have filipino-american friends/relatives who lives in the US & they drive to mexico for work everyday

Tijuanans play a big role in SD's economy & San Diegans play a big role in TJ's economy

the San Diego Airport traffic into Tijuana airport rumor is true


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Yuri S Andrade said:


> ^^
> How can San Diego e Tijuana be part of the same metropolitan area? Do they form a single labour market? Of course not. In that respect, Boston is closer to San Diego than Tijuana is. There ia wall between them.


It is just like HK-Shenzhen. 










The Pearl River Delta have 2 special administrative regions and people who pass through HK or Macao have to pass through immigration.

In fact immigration between HK and China is as strict as SD to TJ.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

WANCH said:


> It is just like HK-Shenzhen.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's why HK and Shenzhen are also 2 separate metropolitan areas. If everything goes as it's planned, they'll merge in 2047.


----------



## coth (Oct 16, 2003)

Guangzhou - Shenzhen is still single built up area.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Yuri: as some have noted, Tijuana and SD are very much integrated, as are many cities along the Mexican border. If you have a legitimate economic or social reason to cross, it is easy to do so. 

You might want to search "maquiladora" for some background on the billions of dollars of goods that cross the border, back and forth, every month. And this is just the tip of the iceberg: many smaller service and assembly businesses provide cross-border services as well. Often you will get management living on the US side and crossing-over daily; and labor living on the Mexican side and crossing in the millions (legal and illegal). Families are often split and visit each other routinely.

But, if you prefer, there is also Vancouver-Seattle, Detroit-Windsor, Toronto-Hamilton-Buffalo. 

I don't want to worry about agglomeration vs. mega-region vs. whatever. This is just a statement about how many people live and work on the ground in the Ventura-Ensenada corridor. About 25M now. I won't speculate on 2050 since I don't have a clue, but it will presumably grow a lot.


----------



## Raffo (Feb 11, 2010)

Yuri S Andrade said:


> Really? So everybody in Tijuana or Ciudad Juárez can work in the US freely? If I move to Tijuana like tomorrow, can I get a job in San Diego on the next day?


If you have a visa that allows you to, of course you can.


----------



## sebvill (Apr 13, 2005)

Is that visa easy to get?


----------



## sweet-d (Jul 20, 2010)

sebvill said:


> Is that visa easy to get?


by 2050 it will be.


----------



## SoroushPersepolisi (Apr 17, 2010)

saiho said:


> from an ecological perspective it is better to concentrate human activity to large nodes rather than distributing them over a vast area. It is easier to build infrastructure and control pollution for a large dense mass than a massive sprawling mess. It also makes HSR and mass transit much more favorable.


yes i know but again, the way it seems is not creating more concentrated living areas, but the megaregions are more to connect dense centres by low density areas, causing lots of sprawl, rather than strictly concentrating cities


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

SoroushPersepolisi said:


> yes i know but again, the way it seems is not creating more concentrated living areas, but the megaregions are more to connect dense centres by low density areas, causing lots of sprawl, rather than strictly concentrating cities


This sounds about right. Bigger means more sprawl; density by its nature is very small.

This reminds me of the radical eco proposal about 20 years ago to concentrate all of the Bay Area residents in 1 or 2 sq. miles of high-rises in SF (SF being already ecologically devasted beyond hope). The rest of the area would be returned to as it was in 1700 or so. The building and reinstatement of nature would be accomplished by forcing architects and builders to do it as punishment for the profits they made from devasting the earth with highways, houses, shopping centers, etc. I remember sending it to all my architecture friends. They mostly denied culpability.

And, no, I am not advocating this.


----------



## gabrielbabb (Aug 11, 2006)

sweet-d said:


> by 2050 it will be.


It's not that difficult, you just need to have the money to pay it, also the cost depends if you want your visa for student trip, for bussiness, for residence, for vacations, and for how many time you will need it (from one week to 10 years), mine will expire on 2014 :S


----------



## SoroushPersepolisi (Apr 17, 2010)

guys i think Tehran and Tehran - Karaj will be in that list aswell


----------



## kevi (Dec 7, 2010)

gabrielbabb said:


> It's not that difficult, you just need to have the money to pay it, also the cost depends if you want your visa for student trip, for bussiness, for residence, for vacations, and for how many time you will need it (from one week to 10 years), mine will expire on 2014 :S


If it's not that difficult then why are there an estimated 12-20 million illegal immigrants in the USA?


----------



## gabrielbabb (Aug 11, 2006)

Almost all the people who are ilegally in the USA are poor in Mexico, those who can't pay US$200 bucks for their VISAS.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Are there more opportunities for lower class Mexicans to enter the US illegally instead of seeking greener pastures in cities like Guadalajara or Mexico City?


----------



## gabrielbabb (Aug 11, 2006)

Well the ilegal immigration to USA has decreased a 70% during the past 5 years, also a great quantity of mexicans who were living there have gone back to Mexico because the opportunities in USA have decreased, so now it is easier aquiring an employement in any of those cities or towns.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

gabrielbabb said:


> Well the ilegal immigration to USA has decreased a 70% during the past 5 years, also a great quantity of mexicans who were living there have gone back to Mexico because the opportunities in USA have decreased, so now it is easier aquiring an employement in any of those cities or towns.


In general, people with legitimate business or social needs can cross the border legally on a temporary basis. People with no money and no jobs are considered likely to seek employment and are considered unlikely to return to Mexico, both of which are generally violations of temporary travel papers. Pretty much the same concept applies for visitors from every country although details vary considerably. 

Hopefully the trend toward returning to Mexico will increase. Ideally, it should be much easier to move capital to Mexico than people to the US.


----------

