# is berlin a Megacity?



## DonQui (Jan 10, 2005)

Responding to the thread, I do not think of Berlin is in the same category as London or Paris because Berlin is not even the most important city within Germany. 

I think Berlin occupies the ring of smaller sized major European cities right beneath your London and Paaris beheamoths.

Berlin fits more with cities like Madrid, Barcelona, Milan, Rome and upcoming Warsaw in a couple of decades. Major cities that are not London or Paris.


----------



## polako (Apr 7, 2005)

DonQui said:


> what do you smoke?
> 
> :crazy:
> 
> ...


What do you smoke? 
Every source on the web, will tell you that they are not megacities. Their Metros exceed 10 million but nut urbanized areas.


----------



## DonQui (Jan 10, 2005)

polako said:


> What do you smoke?
> Every source on the web, will tell you that they are not megacities. Their Metros exceed 10 million but nut urbanized areas.


Sorry, but where do you read your news, the Onion?

You are so wrong that it is laughable, it is beyond debatable.


----------



## polako (Apr 7, 2005)

DonQui said:


> Sorry, but where do you read your news, the Onion?
> 
> You are so wrong that it is laughable, it is beyond debatable.


Where do you get your news, from around the cracker barrel? :nuts: 
Find one site on the web that shows London and Paris urbanized areas have over 10 million. You can't, because Paris urbanized area has 9.7 million and London has 8.5 million.


----------



## DonQui (Jan 10, 2005)

polako said:


> Where do you get your news, from around the cracker barrel? :nuts:
> Find one site on the web that shows London and Paris urbanized areas have over 10 million. You can't, because Paris urbanized area has 9.7 million and London has 8.5 million.


You are likely going to be the only one arguing this silly view point.

And unless we want to get into a retarded metropolitan area vs. urban area debate, you known DAMN well that both metropolitan areas are significantly larger than that!

:crazy:

Honestly, I can support the New York arrogance, but it should never border on being disingenuous.


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

polako, the Paris urban area had a population of 9,644,507 *in 1999*, today in 2006, it can be fairly reasonable to say that it has exeeded 10 000 000, as it has been growing (just like the rest of France).

London is harder to define because of the green belt, but it doesn't count much, because the urban area's borders are artificial, and the urbanisation has continued beyond the belt.

But what counts anyways is the metro population, why? Because the people still work in the urban area and they just live away from it because of housing prices or other things.

They still "belong" to the city, period.

Berlin seems like a nice city, but to equal it with the likes of London or Paris (or Moscow and Istanbull) is just plain ignorance and chauvinism.


----------



## HelloMoto163 (Aug 13, 2005)

berlin is maybe in 300 years a megacity


----------



## DonQui (Jan 10, 2005)

virtual said:


> polako, the Paris urban area had a population of 9,644,507 *in 1999*, today in 2006, it can be fairly reasonable to say that it has exeeded 10 000 000, as it has been growing (just like the rest of France).
> 
> London is harder to define because of the green belt, but it doesn't count much, because the urban area's borders are artificial, and the urbanisation has continued beyond the belt.
> 
> ...


I mostly agree with you (for a change )

Except for the last bit. 

IMO you need to have size and wealth in order to be a MEGAcity, i.e., a city whose influence extends well beyond its borders, economically, culturally, etc. So for me, that would exclude the likes of Sao Paulo, Mexico City, Moscow, or Istanbul.


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

That's just a difference in vocabulary then, your definition of a megacity is what a lot of people on these forums call a "world city" (London, NY, Tokyo, Paris, HK etc), when for me, a megacity is just a huge city (and so the likes of Dakha, Lagos, Sao paulo or Mexico city are counted)


----------



## DonQui (Jan 10, 2005)

virtual said:


> That's just a difference in vocabulary then, your definition of a megacity is what a lot of people on these forums call a "world city" (London, NY, Tokyo, Paris, HK etc), when for me, a megacity is just a huge city (and so the likes of Dakha, Lagos, Sao paulo or Mexico city are counted)


Ah, my mistake then


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

No. It's an important city, being a G7 capital and all, but it's not a megacity.


----------



## Momo1435 (Oct 3, 2005)

No, it's too small to be a megacity. It doesn't need to be, the history of the city will always atract people. It doesn't have to be a megacity in order to be a great city.


----------



## grachtengordeldier (Mar 7, 2006)

Even if some people might want it to call it a megacity it is not. It is a great city and a very big city but not mega. Punt uit.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

CrazyCanuck said:


> Do billboards really make a city a mega city? Paris has no Times Sq. or Shibuya and it is a mega city.
> A city does not need a single focus point, and for christ sakes, the city was split in half by a godamn wall for almost thirsty years so it could not have a single focus point. Also, an intersection with billboards is not a focal point.


Why you're talking about billboards I'll never know. Go to Tokyo and you'll understand. At Shibuya the light changes and 1,000 people cross the street, almost as if a stadium is letting out on each corner. Then do the same thing in the Ginza, Shinjuku, and several other places around Tokyo. The sheer repetititveness of the high density and excitement is incredible. But it's the overall population that makes it a megacity, along with the density. 

Density and "focal points" are just one factor. Hong Kong has incredible focal points and it's generally called the densest city in the world but it's not a megacity because it's too small. 

Like I said Berlin is a nice city. It's even exciting and cutting-edge. But it's not a megacity.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

If New York is 20,000,000, London is probably 16,000,000. Just guessing. 

If you cut things off at London's greenbelt you get "urbanized area", but millions of people live in bedroom communities outside that area. As shown by commute patterns and the relative lack of jobs in these places, they look, feel, and act like suburbs. Several dozen train lines serve these places, and are packed with commuters every day. 

Imagine greater New York. Ringing the NYC boundary, convert a swath that's a few miles wide into a greenbelt. Suddenly the "urbanized area" is limited to NYC only. Does that change the fact that people commute to Manhattan from Stamford?


----------



## JBOB (Aug 26, 2005)

Nooo.. Berlin is a megacity for Germany but not one of the Worlds Megacities.


----------



## dhuwman (Oct 6, 2005)

Like what most forumers have already mentioned, I would say Berlin's definitely a great city and a BIG city, but not a mega-city, YET!


----------



## polako (Apr 7, 2005)

DonQui said:


> You are likely going to be the only one arguing this silly view point.
> 
> And unless we want to get into a retarded metropolitan area vs. urban area debate, you known DAMN well that both metropolitan areas are significantly larger than that!
> 
> ...


Facts speak for themselves.


----------



## DonQui (Jan 10, 2005)

polako said:


> Facts speak for themselves.


You HAVE none!

I doubt you have even been to London or Paris as I have. Seeing them up close, you KNOW that their metropolitan areas are gigantic!

:crazy:

Honestly you are fighting a losing battle. Give up already.


----------



## polako (Apr 7, 2005)

DonQui said:


> You HAVE none!
> 
> I doubt you have even been to London or Paris as I have. Seeing them up close, you KNOW that their metropolitan areas are gigantic!
> 
> ...


You are claiming that London and Paris are megacities, I'm claiming that they are not by the definition of an urbanized area(over 10 million). That is how every single source on the Web defines a megacity. :bash: 

www.geohive.com/charts/city_agg1950_2015.php

If you need more sources just google the topic.


----------



## polako (Apr 7, 2005)

brisavoine said:


> The urban area of Paris had 9,644,507 inhabitants at the 1999 French census (source ). Today in 2006 the figure is estimated at around 10.1 million.
> 
> The urban area of London had 8,278,251 inhabitants at the 2001 UK census (source ). Today in 2006 the figure is estimated at around 8.55 million.
> 
> In 2000 the urban area of Berlin had 3,742,024 inhabitants (source ). Today in 2006 the figure is estimated at around 3.75 million (hardly any change at all).


Finally someone has showed data with sources for both Paris and London urbanized areas. Thank you brisavoine. So as of 2006 Paris is a megacity. London is not a megacity yet. If current raw growth continues it will be by 2030 based on the info above. Ohh yeah. Lets do the dance. :dance2:


----------



## OettingerCroat (May 24, 2005)

^^ i think its just funny that according to you polako, if a city had 9,999,999 inhabitants, and all of the aspects of a city that was defined as a megacity, the city of 9,999,999 according to you wouldn't be a megacity.

i say berlin is not a megacity. but london and paris both are.


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

polako said:


> Finally someone has showed data with sources for both Paris and London urbanized areas. Thank you brisavoine. So as of 2006 Paris is a megacity. London is not a megacity yet. If current raw growth continues it will be by 2030 based on the info above. Ohh yeah. Lets do the dance. :dance2:


Wake up dude.
If you use the US Census definition of urban area on London, it has a urban core of 12 million.

The English (European) definition is very strict and London has a green belt.


----------



## beta29 (Sep 30, 2004)

No, it´s sad but Berlin isn´t a Megacity.

But it would be if there were no WW2 and the Wall.
In the year 1939 Berlin had a population of 4.3 Mio with a big population growth, so I think without WW2 and the wall it would be on the same level with Paris and London but sadly it isn´t today and it will never be!


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

SHiRO said:


> Wake up dude.
> If you use the US Census definition of urban area on London, it has a urban core of 12 million.
> 
> The English (European) definition is very strict and London has a green belt.


No, that's not correct actually. The US definition of urban areas is stricter than the European definition. For instance, the US Census Bureau considers that San Francisco and San Jose are two separate urban areas, whereas most European demographers consider they are a single urban area.


----------



## coth (Oct 16, 2003)

SHiRO said:


> Wake up dude.
> If you use the US Census definition of urban area on London, it has a urban core of 12 million.
> 
> The English (European) definition is very strict and London has a green belt.


Weak up as well. We are not in United States. 


plus. resuming talk on moscow - i found a book social-economical regionalisation of russia, which dates from 1999 (better to look in ie).
http://www.hi-edu.ru/x-books/xbook010/01/index.html?007.htm

it is define 12,1mln population of moscow agglomeration in 1998. then 14,1 in 2002 using census figures.
http://www.hi-edu.ru/x-books/xbook010/files/images/07_007.gif


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

beta29 said:


> No, it´s sad but Berlin isn´t a Megacity.
> 
> But it would be if there were no WW2 and the Wall.
> In the year 1939 Berlin had a population of 4.3 Mio with a big population growth, so I think without WW2 and the wall it would be on the same level with Paris and London but sadly it isn´t today and it will never be!


In 1939 the Paris urban area had 6 million inhabitants, and the London urban area had 8.5 million inhabitants.


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

brisavoine said:


> No, that's not correct actually. The US definition of urban areas is stricter than the European definition. For instance, the US Census Bureau considers that San Francisco and San Jose are two separate urban areas, whereas most European demographers consider they are a single urban area.


Ugh...

The US Census definition is NOT stricter then the European one. The US Census definition uses census tracts with more then 1000 ppsm, while the whole of England has something like 990 ppsm (iirc). The fact that they make an exception for San Fran and San Jose doesn't change anything about this.

Don't try to argue against facts people, it's stupid...


----------



## beta29 (Sep 30, 2004)

brisavoine said:


> In 1939 the Paris urban area had 6 million inhabitants, and the London urban area had 8.5 million inhabitants.


I know but I´m talking about Berlin city population, not the urban area.


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

coth said:


> Weak up as well. We are not in United States.
> 
> 
> plus. resuming talk on moscow - i found a book social-economical regionalisation of russia, which dates from 1999 (better to look in ie).
> ...


Stay out of this. If poloko or anyone else accepts American cities as megacities using US Census methods, the same should apply to all the other cities...


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

beta29 said:


> I know but I´m talking about Berlin city population, not the urban area.


In 1939 the urban area of Berlin was entirely contained within city limits, whereas in the case of Paris the urban area already extended well beyond city limits, and in the case of London the urban area extended well beyond the limits of the County of London.


----------



## polako (Apr 7, 2005)

OettingerCroat said:


> ^^ i think its just funny that according to you polako, if a city had 9,999,999 inhabitants, and all of the aspects of a city that was defined as a megacity, the city of 9,999,999 according to you wouldn't be a megacity.
> 
> i say berlin is not a megacity. but london and paris both are.


It is possible for a city to be a global city(London), but not be a megacity. It is also possible for a city to be a megacity, but not to be a global city(New Delhi).


----------



## polako (Apr 7, 2005)

brisavoine said:


> No, that's not correct actually. The US definition of urban areas is stricter than the European definition. For instance, the US Census Bureau considers that San Francisco and San Jose are two separate urban areas, whereas most European demographers consider they are a single urban area.


Exactly.


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

So London is not a mega city because of the green belt? Eventhough if you use US Census standards on urban areas it has a 12 million urban core?

London so clearly is a megacity, anyone claiming otherwise is only doing so out of insecurity.


----------



## polako (Apr 7, 2005)

SHiRO said:


> Stay out of this. If poloko or anyone else accepts American cities as megacities using US Census methods, the same should apply to all the other cities...


What are you talking about? I am only showing data that is defined by European standards, haven't you ever seen my signature?


----------



## coth (Oct 16, 2003)

SHiRO said:


> Stay out of this. If poloko or anyone else accepts American cities as megacities using US Census methods, the same should apply to all the other cities...


wth shiro. then why don't you agree on 21mln figure for moscow?


----------



## polako (Apr 7, 2005)

SHiRO said:


> So London is not a mega city because of the green belt? Eventhough if you use US Census standards on urban areas it has a 12 million urban core?
> 
> London so clearly is a megacity, anyone claiming otherwise is only doing so out of insecurity.


Well, there is not a single list on the WEB that includes London as a megacity. By the way do you even know what a megacity is? It is a "continuous" urban area.


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

And according to US Census standards, London has a continuous urban area of 12 million.

This ignoring the fact that calling a city a megacity, because of continuous build up area is rather silly.


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

Read this:-

http://www.citypopulation.de/World.html


----------



## polako (Apr 7, 2005)

wjfox2002 said:


> Read this:-
> 
> http://www.citypopulation.de/World.html


This list is even worse than what's on wiki. Katowice, PL is listed at #131 with 2.85 million. Wiki has it listed at 3.487 million and that is just the urbanized area. So I have no idea what definition of an urbanized area is your source using. :dunno: Obviously if one adds the surrounding towns and cities outside the urbanized area an easy 4.5 million can be found in the Katowice Metro. Shows just how f'up these lists are. I mean if you are going to do a Metro population list ask others if you don't know the right #s, don't post nonsense. :bash:


----------



## DonQui (Jan 10, 2005)

As a side note, shouldn't we be talking about Berlin?


----------



## polako (Apr 7, 2005)

DonQui said:


> I'll go as far as admiting that the matter is debatable.
> 
> IMO, a world city means wealth, power, and projection of its influence in the greater global stage. Hollywood IMO does not exist to exert LA's influence, but rather, AMERICA'S influence. I do however recognize that this part of the argument is flawed because New York's own claim to fame, hub of finance, is but an expression aof America's wealth.
> 
> ...


Once again your argument consists of your personal feelings not facts or technicalities. At least you would provide some links to prove any of my stats are wrong. You can't, same as you couldn't in the other debate we had about London being a megacity. I asked you to provide at least one link. None.


----------



## DonQui (Jan 10, 2005)

polako said:


> Once again your argument consists of your personal feelings not facts or technicalities. At least you would provide some links to prove any of my stats are wrong. You can't, same as you couldn't in the other debate we had about London being a megacity. I asked you to provide at least one link. None.


The links you posted for London and Paris were :toilet: 

And are we seriously going to start calling into doubt the obvious demographic, economic, and public infrastructure realities in LA?

The massive freeways, America's theaters, and all the Taquerias speak for themselves.


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

DonQui said:


> Third metropolitan economy on earth? Huh? By definition it could only be the fourth as the first three are London, New York, and Tokyo. And once you throw in your Osakas and other cities, I doubt that even more.


Sorry to disapoint you, but London is not the third metropolitan economy on Earth. In 2003 the ranking of the largest metropolitan economies on Earth was as follow:
1- Tokyo
2- New York
3- Los Angeles
4- Osaka
5- Paris
6- London


----------



## DonQui (Jan 10, 2005)

brisavoine said:


> Sorry to disapoint you, but London is not the third metropolitan economy on Earth. In 2003 the ranking of the largest metropolitan economies on Earth was as follow:
> 1- Tokyo
> 2- New York
> 3- Los Angeles
> ...


BS.

London is larger and about comparably as wealthy, if not more.


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

This thread is meant to be about Berlin, but as usual it's veering into a City vs City thread...


----------



## polako (Apr 7, 2005)

DonQui said:


> The links you posted for London and Paris were :toilet:
> 
> And are we seriously going to start calling into doubt the obvious demographic, economic, and public infrastructure realities in LA?
> 
> The massive freeways, America's theaters, and all the Taquerias speak for themselves.


The reality is that LA has lots of major problems, but it's a global city, a megacity and has the third largest Metropolitan economy in the World.

Largest Metropolitan economies in the world:
Tokyo---$1.315 trillion(2003)
NYC-----$1.038 trillion(2004)
LA---------$735 billion(2004)
Osaka------$577 billion(2003)
Paris-------$507 billion(2003)
London-----$450 billion(2003)

Source: wiki


----------



## DonQui (Jan 10, 2005)

polako said:


> Source: wiki


I rest my case.


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

polako said:


> Source: wiki


Oh come on... anybody can edit Wikipedia - you don't even need to register! It's hardly the most reliable source.


----------



## polako (Apr 7, 2005)

DonQui said:


> I rest my case.


You don't trust wiki? What's the matter?

Here's the same data different sources:

http://www.usmayors.org/metroeconomies/ NYC and LA

http://epp.eurostat.cec.eu.int/pls/...REREL_YEAR_2005_MONTH_04/1-07042005-EN-AP.PDF London

http://www.insee.fr/fr/insee_regions/idf/rfc/chifcle_fiche.asp?ref_id=ecotc001&tab_id=1070 Paris

http://www.esri.cao.go.jp/jp/sna/kenmin/h15/kenmin1.pdf Tokyo and Osaka

Be careful you'll need pdf.


----------



## polako (Apr 7, 2005)

wjfox2002 said:


> Oh come on... anybody can edit Wikipedia - you don't even need to register! It's hardly the most reliable source.


No you can't. They changed their policy. You can't edit anything if you are not registered or don't have a link to a governmental data source.


----------



## unoh (Aug 13, 2005)

I found the difference between world cities and megacities..
Today, megacity means city with a population of 10million people or more 

url : http://hsc.csu.edu.au/geography/


----------



## DonQui (Jan 10, 2005)

Zurich, Madrid, Milan, Frankfurt, Singapore...............

All have MUCH less than 10 million people.

not to mention that "Bunas Aires" and "Rio de Janerio" are both hideous typos.


----------



## Randwicked (Jan 29, 2004)

DonQui said:


> Zurich, Madrid, Milan, Frankfurt, Singapore...............
> 
> All have MUCH less than 10 million people.
> 
> not to mention that "Bunas Aires" and "Rio de Janerio" are both hideous typos.


What about 'Cario'??


----------



## dhuwman (Oct 6, 2005)

DonQui said:


> Zurich, Madrid, Milan, Frankfurt, Singapore...............
> 
> All have MUCH less than 10 million people.
> 
> not to mention that "Bunas Aires" and "Rio de Janerio" are both hideous typos.


The map says World Cities, not Megacities. But yeah those typos are funny


----------



## alesmarv (Mar 31, 2006)

London is not a mega city, its a huge citie and its close but not there. Paris could be called a mega city but is realy as small a mega city as one can get. Berlin is defenitly not a mega city.

Most of the mega cities are in poor countries with huge populations where the rural people have flocked to the cities and packed in like sardines, I know the same thing has hapend and is hapening in the west but its still a diferent situation. New York is a mega city, and LA are mega cities


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

unoh said:


> I found the difference between world cities and megacities..
> Today, megacity means city with a population of 10million people or more
> 
> url : http://hsc.csu.edu.au/geography/



Just curious...Where is Chicago in that world cities chart?
I would think that this source is unreliable!


----------



## dhuwman (Oct 6, 2005)

ChicagoSkyline said:


> Where is Chicago in that world cities chart?


But the map features cities like Rio de Jane*ri*o, Buen*a*s Aires and Ca*ri*o.


----------



## dhuwman (Oct 6, 2005)

ChicagoSkyline said:


> Just curious...Where is Chicago in that world cities chart?
> I would think that this source is unreliable!


But the map features cool cities like Rio de Jane*ri*o, Buen*a*s Aires and Ca*ri*o.


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

dhuwman said:


> But the map features cool cities like Rio de Jane*ri*o, Buen*a*s Aires and Ca*ri*o.


Nope I am talking about this so call world cities chart without "CHICAGO"!


----------



## DonQui (Jan 10, 2005)

polako said:


> Paris is a megacity and London is not according to urbanized area definition.-I believe this is the right one.
> Both are megacities by metropolitan area definition.


:crazy:

Honestly, some people take too seriously what they read on the interweb.

Common sense would have led you to the OBVIOUS fact that Paris and London are megacities.


----------



## Mr Bricks (May 6, 2005)

dhuwman said:


> Ahh all these Londoners always bragging...


I´m not a londoner.

Anyway, claiming London isn´t a worldcity is rediculous. And look at dwontown LA, it´s a joke compared to downtown London.


----------



## london-b (Jul 31, 2004)

Check out this Chicago pic :O


----------



## dhuwman (Oct 6, 2005)

Chicago's skyline is just amazing. Methinks it's one of the best in NA


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

london-b said:


> Check out this Chicago pic :O


Did you take this on your way in london-b?  
So breathe taking!~ :runaway:


----------



## polako (Apr 7, 2005)

It's not one of the best in NA, it's the best in the world. :cheers:


----------



## CrazyCanuck (Oct 9, 2004)

Nice pic, but what does that have to do with Berlin being a mega city?


----------



## nick_taylor (Mar 7, 2003)

Metropolitan said:


> The method used in the US is the same as the method used elsewhere. The only difference being that in the US calculations are made according to counties and not according to municipalities.
> 
> Hence everything depends on what are the British equivalent of US counties but I have really problems to imagine any administrative divisions which would make 40% or even 25% of people living in Dover going everyday to the Greater London to work there... and this is exactly what a metro area of 17 million people for London would mean.
> 
> Let's be serious for one second. The US census bureau do not even consider San Francisco and San José as belonging to the same metro area, I hardly see how it would consider Oxford, Cambridge or Dover as belonging to the one of London.


Several problems:

Firstly San Jose is a city with its own focus of commuters like San Francisco is. Infact San Jose has a city population of around 950,000 (larger than San Francisco in fact). If Birmingham was as close to London, then it would be the same situation, but they aren't. 

Secondly by using INSEE methods of calculation, we end up with a metro of 17mn for London. This area doesn't include Dover which would be to the furthest tip of the south-east. It would be doubtful even in an 18mn metro as stated by the GLA that Dover would be included as other areas have far better transport connections to London.












Thirdly as is seen above, Oxford and Cambridge are just about included into this metro using the INSEE method of a population of 17mn. These two cities have far greater access to London than Dover has due to faster and more frequent services into London.


----------



## london-b (Jul 31, 2004)

ChicagoSkyline said:


> Did you take this on your way in london-b?
> So breathe taking!~ :runaway:


lol I wish


----------



## polako (Apr 7, 2005)

nick_taylor said:


> Several problems:
> 
> Firstly San Jose is a city with its own focus of commuters like San Francisco is. Infact San Jose has a city population of around 950,000 (larger than San Francisco in fact). If Birmingham was as close to London, then it would be the same situation, but they aren't.
> 
> ...


How many people live in those counties surrounding London?


----------



## BenL (Apr 24, 2006)

I think the problem with your map Nick is that we can't use the American way of measuring metro areas as British cities behave in very different ways without the sprawling suburbs of cities like Los Angeles.


----------



## bayviews (Mar 3, 2006)

Back to Berlin, no its obviously not a megacity. But it's a charming city rich in culture, history & also in international political significance.


----------



## nick_taylor (Mar 7, 2003)

polako said:


> How many people live in those counties surrounding London?


From that simple right hand map, the entire population is around 20.7mn. 17mn reside within that line which basically shows the concentration is immense around London. The key difference between say London and New York is that the London metro has denser and more numerous commuter settlements, while for New York, the city is denser and its urban area is larger simply because London has a massive 'Green Belt' to stop sprawl in its way. Although many would argue that a 200m gap between essentially a dislocated urban strand, eg the A10 urban corridor which goes on for miles and is split only by a 200m gap of fields is essentially a part of the urban area.

By all accounts London could be termed a megacity if the population of an urban area is around 10mn because by all accounts it does achieve this (only problem being the Green Belt which is pretty much like a park). Yet I'd consider the metro area to be a more defining level of comparison. I'd say Paris is also a megacity - it has a dense city and surrounding core, but sparse external area.

I don't think Berlin is a mega-city: its simply not large enough.


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

nick_taylor said:


> Secondly by using INSEE methods of calculation, we end up with a metro of 17mn for London.


You are probably unfamiliar with the nitty-gritties of INSEE methods of calculation of metropolitan areas (INSEE is the French national statical office, for those who wonder). The black line you draw on the map is your vision of reality, but it is certainly not resulting from the complex INSEE method as if applied to Britain (which, by the way, would be near impossible given that INSEE uses tiny communes (municipalities) as their grid base, and Britain has no communes, only large districts). 

Just to let you know, INSEE considers that a commune is part of the metropolitan area if at least 40% of people in the commune commute to the core of the metropolitan area for work. In your drawing you included Brighton as part of your self-designed metro area. Yet at the 2001 UK census less than 11% of people in Brighton and Hove reported that they commuted to Greater London for work. So Brighton would not qualify as part of the London metropolitan area using INSEE methods of calculation. In Oxford at the 2001 UK census 71% of people reported that they worked less than 3 miles from home. Again Oxford cannot be included in the London metropolitan area. The same goes for Northampton, Peterborough, Cambridge, Milton Keynes, Bedford, and so on....


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

CrazyCanuck said:


> Nice pic, but what does that have to do with Berlin being a mega city?


Someone shows a home-made world city map without Chicago and I think that it was the reminder!


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

polako said:


> It's not one of the best in NA, it's the best in the world. :cheers:


I am confused? If it is the best in the world, how come it aint the best in NA???


----------



## polako (Apr 7, 2005)

ChicagoSkyline said:


> I am confused? If it is the best in the world, how come it aint the best in NA???


It isn't one of the best, it is the best.
Just like Tokyo isn't one of the largest cities, it's the largest.

Anything under number one is one of the largest.


----------



## Metropolitan (Sep 21, 2004)

nick_taylor said:


> Several problems:
> 
> Firstly San Jose is a city with its own focus of commuters like San Francisco is. Infact San Jose has a city population of around 950,000 (larger than San Francisco in fact). If Birmingham was as close to London, then it would be the same situation, but they aren't.
> 
> ...


Nick Taylor. All you're saying in here is utterly and completely wrong. Check your own map for christ sake ! The urban areas are pictured in grey, can't you see how far away they are from each others ? The population density of that region is comparable to the one of the Netherlands ! Would you say that the whole Netherlands is a single metro area of 16 million people ?

The INSEE would consider Oxford, Cambridge, Peterborough, Reading, Brighton, Luton, Crawley, Guildford and many other cities in your black circle as having their proper urban and metropolitan areas. If you don't believe this, you should simply check the North of France, which is very densely urbanized and divided in tons of metropolitan areas.

Here is a map of the INSEE calculated metro areas in Nord-Pas-de-Calais :










As you can see, the metro areas of various cities are touching each other, even the administrative boundaries of some urban areas are touching each others. But yet, they are not considered as one and the same. And this for a simple reason, in the details, the builtup areas in Armentières do not join the builtup areas of Lille even if the municipalities grouped for both are indeed sharing common borders.

If the INSEE calculation would really group altogether scattered cities as those you group in your dark circle, then all the cities in that map of Nord-Pas-de-Calais would be considered as one and unique metropolitan area. Is this the case ? No.

So stop spreading bs about INSEE method, US calculation or whatever other stuff which would be supposed to consider the whole SouthEast of England as being in London metro area... because this is simply wrong. _Totally_ wrong.


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

Most of south-east England DOES fall under London's metropolitan area - perhaps not _all_, but certainly _most_ - and you're simply in denial if you can't accept this.

A "metropolitan area" is defined as a large population center consisting of a large city and its adjacent zone of influence, or of several neighboring cities or towns and adjoining areas, with one or more large cities serving as its hub or hubs. A metropolitan area usually combines an agglomeration (the contiguous built-up area) with peripheral zones not themselves necessarily urban in character, but closely bound to the centre by employment or commerce; these zones are also sometimes known as a *commuter belt*, and may extend well beyond the urban periphery depending on the definition used.

I've known people who regularly commuted from Oxford, Cambridge, Peterborough, Norwich, etc. into London to work. It's only an hour by train.


----------



## nick_taylor (Mar 7, 2003)

Mike-Hunt - Firstly thats not my map it was made by the French forumer _Manuel_ who actually did academic work in this field. Secondly I think you'll find that the same could be said of areas in say New York's metro due to poorer transportation links. Afterall the CSA of New York covers an area of 30,671km² with a population of 21mn. Do you have by any chance the commuter figures for say Tuckerton in Ocean County, New Jersey. Afterall this settlement actually doesn't have a direct rail connection to New York and the only way you can get to New York is if you were to drive to New York, drive to Atlantic City (take a train into Philadelphia then up to New York) or drive north to Point Pleasant to get on the North Jersey Coast Line into New York Penn. This settlement is 100miles from New York. Peterborough on the other hand which is the furthest part of the aforementioned 17mn metro is 80miles from London (ie 20 miles nearer) and has direct-London connections via three railway companies (First Capital Connect, GNER and Hull Trains) via a <1hr train journey. The whole point is that there are differences and that they aren't mirrored like for like. Thirdly if the metro of London was around 13mn that would make it per capita richer than New York (as you adequately pointed out from your own sources from a previous thread), not to mention much denser. Its a flip of the coin. 




Metropolitan - Firstly where did I state that my maps were somehow illustrative of the urban area? Secondly the Netherlands is a collection of cities in a densely populated country. London is the sole major city that acts as a magent on the surrounding areas. Thirdly territories and census areas differ, hence why there aren't slap bang similarities. Fourthly comparing London and its surrounding areas to a region which has no core centre but several regional centres is flawed because while there are indeed centres of their own around London, they are not as significant as London is. Lille for instance only has a population of 226,800 (2004), but the Nord-Pas de Calais region has a population of 4,032,000. Your comparion (as with the Netherlands) lacks a single core city that presides over the surrounding area. Fithly the Nord-Pas de Calais region has a density of 325/km², the South-East which has a population close to double that of the aforementioned French region has a density of 419/km², yet not all of this area would be classed as being part of the London metro and the densest areas are located closer to London in the form of the commuter market towns that orbit around London. The South-East's focus isn't for example on a specific centre but London, this can't be said of the Nord-Pays de Calais region. Sixthly, I never stated that the whole of the South-East of England was somehow a part of London's metro - the maps clearly I showed earlier clearly show otherwise.


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

nick_taylor said:


> Peterborough on the other hand which is the furthest part of the aforementioned 17mn metro is 80miles from London (ie 20 miles nearer) and has direct-London connections via three railway companies (First Capital Connect, GNER and Hull Trains) *via a <1hr train journey.*


:yes: :yes: :yes: 





nick_taylor said:


> Fourthly comparing London and its surrounding areas to a region which has no core centre but several regional centres is flawed because while there are indeed centres of their own around London, they are not as significant as London is. Lille for instance only has a population of 226,800 (2004), but the Nord-Pas de Calais region has a population of 4,032,000. Your comparion (as with the Netherlands) lacks a single core city that presides over the surrounding area.


Exactly! :yes:


----------



## Mr Bricks (May 6, 2005)

Britain is a pretty small country (geographicly) and London is a huge metropole so the metro area will probobly take up very much space and have a large population. Because the London metro population is almost a third of the whole population of the UK and the area is very big i think this is why people have such a hard time beliving the London metropolitan population actually is 17 million.


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

SuomiPoika said:


> this is why people have such a hard time beliving the London metropolitan population actually is 17 million.


Yes! :yes:


----------



## coth (Oct 16, 2003)

what for this talk about phantom metro area of London again?

we talking about urban areas here


----------



## Metropolitan (Sep 21, 2004)

Nick, try to be honnest :

1- As for your answer to Mike-Hunt. Your comment is irrelevant since the commuting figure is about people in satellite towns commuting into an urban core. In the case of NYC, that urban core is far bigger than the city of New York in itself, as such, it's irrelevant to wonder how many people from Tuckerton are working to Manhattan since what matters is whether they work in the contiguous urban area of NYC. Do you see the difference ?

2- About Lille, you as usual compare apples with oranges. The urban area of Lille encompasses 1.1 million people in an area of 4 million people. The comparison with the Greater London (7.3 million people) and the whole South East of Britain (20 million people) is perfectly valid.

It's always the same with your blatant subjectivity. The city of London is about 8,000 people and this is as much irrelevant as the city of Lille being at 230,000 people. You're always selecting your informations to the one suiting the best your agenda. I have no problem with blind patriotism, but sometimes, such a behaviour is not really in your advantage since it does nothing else than annoying everyone.


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

coth said:


> what for this talk about phantom metro area of London again?
> 
> we talking about urban areas here


Yes, we all know how much you detest everything to do with London, no need to remind us.


----------



## Metropolitan (Sep 21, 2004)

SuomiPoika said:


> Britain is a pretty small country (geographicly) and London is a huge metropole so the metro area will probobly take up very much space and have a large population. Because the London metro population is almost a third of the whole population of the UK and the area is very big i think this is why people have such a hard time beliving the London metropolitan population actually is 17 million.


Oh please stop your crap for one second ! Check a map please and realize how disconnected are all the urban areas which have to be grouped together to reach that figure of 17 million people. There are more arguments to say that Osaka and Tokyo are in the same metro area than to say that London metro area is so wide.

Would you consider Rouen, Chartres, Orléans, Beauvais, Reims as being in the commuter belt of Paris ? Then why would you consider Peterborough, Brighton, Oxford as being in the commuter belt of London ?? That's utterly a non sense and there is absolutely NO sources which are assuming that London metropolitan area is over the figure of 13 million people. That 13 million people figure is the maximum estimates I've ever seen.


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

Metropolitan said:


> why would you consider Peterborough, Brighton, Oxford as being in the *commuter belt* of London ??


Because MANY people *commute* from those places into London, and it takes less than a hour. Why is it so difficult for you to understand this?



Metropolitan said:


> That's utterly a non sense


It makes perfect sense.


----------



## coth (Oct 16, 2003)

wjfox2002 said:


> Yes, we all know how much you detest everything to do with London, no need to remind us.


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=city
a large and densely populated urban area;


----------



## brunob (Sep 11, 2002)

Whatever the figures, and i can't say i care much for those 'debates', you can take my word in good faith that i have a couple of friends who commute ever day to london from Brighton, it's no worse than me living in central zone two spending an hour and a half on the bus to reach the west end when brighton commuters only spend one on the train. Nuff said!


----------



## HelloMoto163 (Aug 13, 2005)

can me tell someone why in EVERY thread is a discussion about londons metro area and other london stuff? :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: 

"London is the biggest and greatest on earth.....and larger than new york" blabla 
it is just as how ohh my **** is bigger than ..blabla and ich have the best :sleepy:


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

A good place to close this ridiculous thread.


----------

