# The biggest cities on the World



## ferguz (Feb 15, 2006)

these are the biggest cities in the world


over 10.000.000


North America:

New York
Los Angeles
Chicago 


Latin America:

Sao Paulo
Rio de Janeiro
Mexico City
Buenos Aires


Europe:

London
Paris
Moscow
Dusseldorf-Khöln-Dortmund Area
Istanbul



Africa:

Cairo
Lagos



Asia:

Karachi
Tehran
Mumbai
kolkatta
Delhi
Dhaka
Yakarta
Manila
Tokyo
Osaka
Seoul
Beijing
Shanghai
Guangzhou


over 5.000.000


North America:

Baltimore
Dallas
Boston
Philadelphia
San Francisco
Detroit
Toronto



Latin America:

Bogotá
Lima
Belo Horizonte
Santiago
Caracas



Europe:

Madrid
Manchester 
Saint Petersburg



Africa:

Alexandria
Trípoli
Casablanca
Ibadan
Kinshasa
Khartum
Johannesburg
Addis ababa



Asia:

Lahore
Ankara
Riyad
Esfahan
Chennai
Bangalore
Pune
Hyerabad
Chengdu
Tianjin
Hong Kong
Shenzhen
Wuhan
Harbin
Nagoya
Busan
Surabaya
Kuala Lumpur
Ho Chi Minh City
Chittatong
Yangon
Bangkok
Taipei


Oceania:

Sydney


----------



## Jaborandi (Nov 19, 2006)

Manchester over 5,000,000?

I think not.


----------



## ROYU (Jul 19, 2004)

Asia is the one with the most populated cities and in some 15 years the will have more population especially for China and India.


----------



## SYDNEYAHOLIC (Nov 3, 2006)

Sydney itself only has 4.3 million. 

But if you add the Central Coast-Newcastle pops as well as Woolongong then the pop comes to over 5 million. 

4.3+
0.6 (Newcastle)
0.3 (Central Coast)
0.25 (Woolongong)
=
5.45 million. 

These other smaller cities aren't connected to Sydney's urban area directly because of topographical challenges and some large national parks. 

They are however I think included in the Sydney Statistical Division and Woolongong and the Central Coast are within commuting distance and are heavily involved with Sydney. 

Newcastle is within a very long commuting distance to Sydney though. 

PS - the pops for the satellite city's might be a little off.


----------



## SYDNEYAHOLIC (Nov 3, 2006)

The Sydney urban area is projected to be home to 5.5 million people by 2050 though.


----------



## will.exe (Aug 9, 2006)

LA is only over 10mil if you include all metro, and Chicago isn't even over 10mil including the metro.....


----------



## ferguz (Feb 15, 2006)

Jaborandi said:


> Manchester over 5,000,000?
> 
> I think not.


Manchester-Bolton-Oldham-Stockport-Saint Helenes-Liverpool-Preston-Blackpool.

all the zone


----------



## Eureka! (Jun 7, 2006)

SYDNEYAHOLIC said:


> Sydney itself only has 4.3 million.
> 
> But if you add the Central Coast-Newcastle pops as well as Woolongong then the pop comes to over 5 million.
> 
> ...


Exactly. Sydney isn'tever said to be over 5 million. It's 4.3 million. Those areas don't count especially Newcastle. minus Newcastle and it doesn't reac 5 million.


----------



## Iggui (May 17, 2005)

detroit does not have more than 5,000,000 people.


----------



## dunwyn (Mar 15, 2006)

ferguz said:


> Manchester-Bolton-Oldham-Stockport-Saint Helenes-Liverpool-Preston-Blackpool.
> 
> all the zone


So you mean Greater Lancaster???



will.exe said:


> LA is only over 10mil if you include all metro, and Chicago isn't even over 10mil including the metro.....


All of these figures are metropolitan areas. Not the basic cities. 

City of Sydney only has about 150,000. It would be stupid not to include it’s suburbs.

Greater LA Area comprises the counties of (millions):

Los Angeles 10.2
Orange 3.1
San Bernardino 1.9
Riverside 1.6
Ventura 0.8
*Total 17.1*

Just including LA county it’s over 10 million. Then there are many suburbs outside LA county these should also be included. It’s ridiculous not to. 

Greater Chicago has nearly 10 million but if you include Milwaukee then is about 12 million. 

It all depends on the definition of a city, metropolis.


----------



## Cariad (Sep 22, 2005)

ferguz said:


> Manchester-Bolton-Oldham-Stockport-Saint Helenes-Liverpool-Preston-Blackpool.
> 
> all the zone


Ferguz, you cant quite include those as they are all seperate cities, especially Manchester and Liverpool, they are very much their own entities. By what you are saying by including all those cities you are really saying the entire North-West of England. If this was your thinking then you could say the same about London and make it the South-East of England and include places like Brighton and engulf the other areas and the population of London would be about 20 million, which of course is not right.
Not sure where you got yuor figures but many of them are incorrect.


----------



## Skybean (Jun 16, 2004)

Toronto is around 2.6 million. Not even close to 5 million.


----------



## Cariad (Sep 22, 2005)

Also Dortmund-Kolne-Dusseldorf is not a city, they are cities in theor won rights, you have just selected a region.
Plus Johannesburg is roughly 3.5 million people
Chicago is about 3 million in City proper, but about 8.8-9 million in the urban area.
Osaka is only about 3 million in the city urban area is about 19 million but that inlcudes Kobe and Kyoto.
Baltimore is 3 million max in urban area.
Casablanca is about 2.7 million


----------



## Ivanirva (Sep 13, 2006)

I think Buenos Aires itself is only over 2 million, but if you take into account the surrounding areas a.k.a "The Big Buenos Aires" then you have more than 10 million people...


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

I think Bangkok has over 10 million


----------



## Chicagoago (Dec 2, 2005)

this thread is just screaming BLOODBATH


----------



## Cristovão471 (May 9, 2006)

Anyway sydney 'city' of 150,000 is only 25 kilometres squared


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

If you were talking about metros, then it would be a little less wrong...still wrong, but not as comical.



ferguz said:


> these are the biggest cities in the world
> North America:
> 
> New York *8.2m*
> ...


Some were close (NY) but others (Boston, Detroit, Baltimore) were WAY off-track.



> Africa:
> 
> Alexandria
> Trípoli
> ...


The only right one here was Kinshasa, which is pushing 8m now. The rest are far from 5 million.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

The metro/city definitions are not standardized around the world. The comparison won't be apples to apples.


----------



## Küsel (Sep 16, 2004)

Another useless "which city is bigger" thread hno: 

hkskyline said it right: there are for example no official agglomeration definitions in Italy - so Milano could have 1.3, 3.5, 5.1 or even 7mio according to different statistics. And Latin America is NOT the same as South America! Mexico City is in North America! And where are the 5mio for Baltimore if you count Philli seperatly? Etc etc....


----------

