# Largest city?



## Copperknickers (May 15, 2011)

I was wondering, what is the largest city in the world? I mean by the actual area of the urban area, which is impossible to find online - that is, the largest cityscape in the world. Tokyo is the largest by population but it's so dense, I would guess an American city where houses are spread out.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

I've heard that New York is the largest urban area in area, covering over 11,000 km². 

Source: http://www.demographia.com/db-wlargestua.pdf


----------



## Dralcoffin (Feb 27, 2010)

Yeah, I would say New York. Besides the city, the built up area includes the north eastern third of New Jersey, almost the whole length of Long Island, stretches up the Hudson to Poughkeepsie, and sprawls into a corner of Connecticut. The current definition of the urban area (the actual built up area as opposed to the metro area which follows county lines) has Greater New York covering over _16,000_ square kilometers.


----------



## accadacca (May 6, 2008)

What about LA?


----------



## NorthWesternGuy (Aug 25, 2005)

^^L.A. covers about 6,000 km. It's a huge place, the densest American metro area, I think.


----------



## Metro007 (Apr 18, 2011)

For me, from what we can 'feel' as huge from a human point of view, i would say that L.A. is the biggest city in the world, although the megalopolis Bos-Wash is bigger. So i meant from what we can interpret as one whole city i never have seen any bigger city than L.A.

From the top of newyork's Skyscrapers (because it is so high) we can see the borders of the city, that i could not in L.A. because it is a very flat city. So i am just talking about my personal perception...


----------



## DarkkPhenixx (Apr 18, 2012)

Metro007 said:


> For me, from what we can 'feel' as huge from a human point of view, i would say that L.A. is the biggest city in the world, although the megalopolis Bos-Wash is bigger. So i meant from what we can interpret as one whole city i never have seen any bigger city than L.A.
> 
> From the top of newyork's Skyscrapers (because it is so high) we can see the borders of the city, that i could not in L.A. because it is a very flat city. So i am just talking about my personal perception...


That's maybe because New-York's skyscrapers are higher than those in L.A.


----------



## binhai (Dec 22, 2006)

Possibly the Pearl River Delta megalopolis. It's so big it doesn't even have a main city as its focus, unlike most megalopolises, but has multiple notable cities that blend into each other, none really dominant over the others (Hong Kong, Shenzhen, Dongguan, Guangzhou, Foshan, Zhuhai, Macau + many more). It's as close as Coruscant as you can find on earth.


----------



## GENIUS LOCI (Nov 18, 2004)

It is the largest by population, but there are American cities with largest urban areas and way less population


----------



## binhai (Dec 22, 2006)

Do their outskirts qualify as "urban" though? Outlying areas of the PRD are a lot more dense than suburbs and exurbs in New Jersey and Connecticut. It depends on what you want to call a city.


----------



## GENIUS LOCI (Nov 18, 2004)

Urban area is urban ara, the density doesn't matter


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

I think this is a very hard comparison, because different areas have different typologies and different spatial organization patterns.

For instance: some consider Bos-Was a single large metropolitan area. But the case is very hard to make as there are clearly problem with the hierarchical network of urban areas on such a large scale.

If you apply the same loose definitions of conurbation of the Bos-Was to Netherlands and Belgium, than everything from Charleroi to Utrecht in an arch would be a single metropolitan area.

The task is easy in cases like Los Angeles where natural boundaries clearly define some limits. Somehow this applies to Madrid and Barcelona as well...

But what about a situation like South Florida? It's practically a continuum on the Eastern Florida Coast all the way north from Kew West...

Then, you have situations like the triangle Bern-Basel-Zurich... with many interrelations, commuting etc. between all that is between...

We didn't even start on jurisdictional criteria (which makes, for instance, cities like Washington, DC, Atlanta, Frankfurt to have much smaller populations than their Metro areas...


----------



## joshbc (Nov 20, 2011)

what about chicago?


----------



## Blackpool88 (Nov 15, 2007)

I remember from the urban area map showcase thread that Spotilia made Atlanta seemed to be the biggest urban footprint in America.


----------



## zdaddy233 (Oct 31, 2007)

If you don't consider the far ends of the exurbs, I would think it's Los Angeles. That place FEELS like a city from the far eastern reaches of San Bernardino west to the Ocean, from the north of Santa Clarita down to the southern shores of San Clemente. Plus, around Temecula area it's almost connected to San Diego. Including exurbs, you can pretty much go from southern Maine to near Richmond, VA without leaving a somewhat developed area.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

Americans are the biggest. Just released from Census 2010:

*US Urban Areas 2010*

*Urban Area --- Population --- Area --- Density*

1. New York --- 19,274,606 --- 10,143.5 km² --- 1,900.2 inh./km²

2. Los Angeles --- 14,083,662 --- 5,907.8 km² --- 2,383.9 inh./km²

3. Chicago --- 8,608,208 --- 6,326.7 km² ---- 1,360.6 inh./km²

4. Miami --- 5,502,379 --- 3,208.0 km² --- 1,715.2 inh./km²

5. Philadelphia --- 5,441,567 --- 5,131.7 km² --- 1,060.4 inh./km²

6. Dallas --- 5,121,892 --- 4,607.9 km² --- 1,111.5 inh./km²

7. San Francisco --- 4,945,708 --- 2,096.9 km² --- 2,358.6 inh./km²

8. Houston --- 4,944,332 --- 4,299.5 km² --- 1,150.0 inh./km²

9. Washington --- 4,586,770 --- 3,423.3 km² --- 1,339.9 inh./km²

10. Atlanta --- 4,515,419 --- 6,851.5 km² --- 659.0 inh./km²

11. Boston --- 4,181,019 --- 4,852.3 km² --- 861.7 inh./km²

12. Detroit --- 3,734,090 --- 3,463.2 km² --- 1,078.2 inh./km²

13. Phoenix --- 3,629,114 --- 2,969.6 km² --- 1,222.1 inh./km²

14. Seattle --- 3,059,393 --- 2,616.7 km² --- 1,169.2 inh./km²

15. San Diego --- 2,956,746 --- 1,896.9 km² --- 1,558.7 inh./km²

16. Minneapolis --- 2,650,890 --- 2,646.5 km² --- 1,001.7 inh./km²

17. Tampa --- 2,441,770 --- 2,478.6 km² --- 985.1 inh./km²

18. Denver --- 2,374,203 --- 1,730.0 km² --- 1,372.4 inh./km²

19. Baltimore --- 2,203,663 --- 1,857.1 km² --- 1,190.5 inh./km²

20. St. Louis --- 2,150,706 --- 2,392.2 km² --- 899.0 inh./km²

21. Las Vegas --- 1,886,011 --- 1,079.6 km² --- 1,747.0 inh./km²

22. Portland --- 1,849,898 --- 1,358.1 km² --- 1,362.1 inh./km²

23. Cleveland --- 1,780,673 --- 1,999.4 km² --- 890.6 inh./km²

24. San Antonio --- 1,758,210 --- 1,546.5 km² --- 1,136.9 inh./km²

25. Pittsburgh --- 1,733,853 --- 2,344.4 km² --- 739,6 inh./km²

26. Sacramento --- 1,723,634 --- 1,219.8 km² --- 1,413.0 inh./km²

27. Cincinnati --- 1,624,827 --- 2,040.2 km² --- 796.4 inh./km²

28. Kansas City --- 1,519,417 --- 1,755.6 km² --- 865.5 inh./km²

29. Orlando --- 1,510,516 --- 1,548.0 km² --- 975.8 inh./km²


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


*Ranked by area*:

1. New York --- 10,143.5 km²

2. Atlanta --- 6,851.5 km²

3. Chicago --- 6,326.7 km²

4. Los Angeles --- 5,907.8 km²

5. Philadelphia --- 5,131.7 km²

6. Boston --- 4,852.3 km²

7. Dallas --- 4,607.9 km² 

8. Houston --- 4,299.5 km²


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

zdaddy233 said:


> Including exurbs, you can pretty much go from southern Maine to near Richmond, VA without leaving a somewhat developed area.


Eastern Connecticut is an exception to that. Outside New London-Norwich, it's quite rural.


----------



## zdaddy233 (Oct 31, 2007)

Xusein said:


> Eastern Connecticut is an exception to that. Outside New London-Norwich, it's quite rural.


That's true. I guess from my travels I think of it as going up through Hartford into Mass.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

Every time we talk about this, it falls apart once people start questioning how to define a city's boundaries and the different methodologies used around the world.


----------



## oliver999 (Aug 4, 2006)

newyork for sure.


----------



## neves29 (Nov 22, 2011)

well i dont know about the others, but são paulo is huge when its about urban area


----------



## Metro007 (Apr 18, 2011)

Of course but less huge than the other cities we speak about.


----------



## Cosperus (Jan 8, 2006)

*Jacksonville, Florida

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacksonville,_Florida

Jacksonville is the largest city by area in the Contiguous United States

(some cities in Alaska are larger)

see:

List of United States cities by area

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_area
*


----------



## spxy2 (Sep 26, 2011)

You cant discuss city sizes without defining what is urban, what is sub-urban and what is rural.

There are whole countries with higher population densities than many of the US urban areas mentioned in this thread.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

spxy2 said:


> You cant discuss city sizes without defining what is urban, what is sub-urban and what is rural.
> 
> There are whole countries with higher population densities than many of the US urban areas mentioned in this thread.


Well, but those countries also have higher built densities. What counts is measurable built up land, and there New York takes the lead as the largest built up area.


----------



## spxy2 (Sep 26, 2011)

Chrissib said:


> Well, but those countries also have higher built densities. What counts is measurable built up land, and there New York takes the lead as the largest built up area.


They don't always have higher built densities at all. 

It also depends how you define built up land, lots of those suburban areas in the US and Australia have vast tracts of un-bulit land in-between housing, it just more evenly spread than in say Europe.


We can ask the question "are suburban areas really what we define as a city"?


----------



## Rinchinlhumbe (Dec 20, 2008)

in terms of area expanse (not population density!)

Mount Isa in Australia (45,000 sqkm, just 30,000 inhaibtants)
Kiruna (19,000 sqkm, Sweden, just 35,ooo souls)

but much larger and denser
Chongqing (81,000 sqkm, the size of Austria, over 30,000,000 people)


----------



## haikiller11 (Aug 11, 2009)

Chongqing is not that big ^^ 81k sqkm is the size of the whole province which is named municipality whatever and most of that "so called" city is covered in forest and mountain. The actual city of Chongqing is more like Guangzhou.


----------



## oliver999 (Aug 4, 2006)

shanghai city center(中心城区) has nearly 10 million population, might be largest in the world.


----------



## Metro007 (Apr 18, 2011)

I think we are speaking about the whole urban area and not the population of the city-center. I think asian cities (except Tokyo) can't compete with the size of american urban areas (i say this as an European) ;-)


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

oliver999 said:


> shanghai city center(中心城区) has nearly 10 million population, might be largest in the world.



yes, but its suburbs are not that big, though they're highrise still. However there are loads of cities in the area and if they all connect up then
Shanghai will be the biggest city in population aswell as area - its in the worlds densest urban tract, the Yangtze River Delta. At the moment
its close already to connecting up to Suzhou (pop 7 million).


Shanghai city centre



























suburbs


































































...and this believe it or not is the *countryside* in the delta (check it out on Google Earth, pick a random spot then zoom)
for thousands of sq miles, made up of dense tracts of farmers apartment blocks and villas between the fields - built for free by
the local council. In any other place especially with the high population density it would be classed as urban let alone suburban. 

When going through this 'countryside' I thought I was going through the worlds largest city (for years couldnt work out how Hangzhou
was soooo much bigger than Shanghai). From the train it all looks like this for hour after hour:








































the delta cities, fast connecting up:









http://msittig.wubi.org









www.iseis.cuhk.edu.hk


----------



## spotila (Oct 29, 2004)

Those "rural" images are just incredible


----------



## oliver999 (Aug 4, 2006)

spotila said:


> Those "rural" images are just incredible


must be in zhejiang province.


----------



## messicano (Sep 27, 2010)

maybe Los Angeles


----------



## chicagogeorge (Nov 30, 2004)

the spliff fairy said:


> yes, but its suburbs are not that big, though they're highrise still. However there are loads of cities in the area and if they all connect up then
> Shanghai will be the biggest city in population aswell as area - its in the worlds densest urban tract, the Yangtze River Delta. At the moment
> its close already to connecting up to Suzhou (pop 7 million).
> 
> ...



OMG :eek2:


----------



## aaabbbccc (Mar 8, 2009)

Cairo is huge but very packed like a can of sardines , extremelt high density , I have a friend of mine from Cairo who tell me that the population during the day is 25 million and at night it goes down to 20 million


----------



## royal rose1 (Oct 4, 2009)

When looking at the satellite images, it appears Shanghai, Tokyo, or New York.

London looks like a blip on a radar compared to those three.


----------



## Blackpool88 (Nov 15, 2007)

royal rose1 said:


> When looking at the satellite images, it appears Shanghai, Tokyo, or New York.
> 
> London looks like a blip on a radar compared to those three.


What is the population of the continuous urban area of New York out of curiosity?


----------



## Metro007 (Apr 18, 2011)

royal rose1 said:


> When looking at the satellite images, it appears Shanghai, Tokyo, or New York.
> 
> London looks like a blip on a radar compared to those three.


NY, Tokyo AND L.A. ! ;-)


----------



## royal rose1 (Oct 4, 2009)

Blackpool88 said:


> What is the population of the continuous urban area of New York out of curiosity?


22-25 million


----------



## Mr. Uncut (Jan 13, 2008)

Lived for about 3 years in Shanghai (Jing'an) for business and i would say: definitely the largest urban sprawl i`ve ever seen! It was endless...


----------



## oliver999 (Aug 4, 2006)

Mr. Uncut said:


> Lived for about 3 years in Shanghai (Jing'an) for business and i would say: definitely the largest urban sprawl i`ve ever seen! It was endless...


yeah,by urban sprawl, shanghai has 10 million, tokyo 8 million.


----------



## Mr. Uncut (Jan 13, 2008)

oliver999 said:


> yeah,by urban sprawl, shanghai has 10 million, tokyo 8 million.


yep...saw alot of cities, but Shanghai was the most impressive when it comes to the urban footprint! Now it's morphing with other large cities and im sure that it will become the worlds largest urban agglomeration in terms of sprawl AND population!


----------



## oliver999 (Aug 4, 2006)

Mr. Uncut said:


> yep...saw alot of cities, but Shanghai was the most impressive when it comes to the urban footprint! Now it's morphing with other large cities and im sure that it will become the worlds largest urban agglomeration in terms of sprawl AND population!


shanghai surburb is also huge .by 上海拍客 http://pk.zohi.tv/item_view_list.aspx?id=70505


----------



## Mr. Uncut (Jan 13, 2008)

i know, saw the changes...first time i was in Shanghai was 1995, Pudong didn't even existed...now it's covered with those "commie blocks" and will reach the coastal areas soon! Just impressive!


----------



## oliver999 (Aug 4, 2006)

Mr. Uncut said:


> i know, saw the changes...first time i was in Shanghai was 1995, Pudong didn't even existed...now it's covered with those "commie blocks" and will reach the coastal areas soon! Just impressive!


do you think shanghai lack of green very much?


----------



## Mr. Uncut (Jan 13, 2008)

oliver999 said:


> do you think shanghai lack of green very much?


hmmm...not "very much"...indeed the central areas are quite dense, but i also stayed 4 months in Changning near Hongqiao Lu..was quite nice there, the apartment blocks had nice "private" park areas!


----------



## null (Dec 11, 2002)

Mr. Uncut said:


> yep...saw alot of cities, but Shanghai was the most impressive when it comes to the urban footprint! Now it's morphing with other large cities and im sure that it will become the worlds largest urban agglomeration in terms of sprawl AND population!


Huh? Even larger than LA?:nuts:


----------



## Mr. Uncut (Jan 13, 2008)

null said:


> Huh? Even larger than LA?:nuts:


LA is quite suburban in comparision to Shanghai...hard to compare, but in Shanghai u have that city feeling on a much larger area!


----------



## null (Dec 11, 2002)

Well, I havent been to LA yet but it looks impressive on Google Earth.


----------



## Mr. Uncut (Jan 13, 2008)

null said:


> Well, I havent been to LA yet but it looks impressive on Google Earth.


it is but most american cities look like veeery huge cities in GE...from street level all those suburbs seem very rual!


----------



## oliver999 (Aug 4, 2006)

null said:


> Well, I havent been to LA yet but it looks impressive on Google Earth.


i've never been to western countries, i dont know ,if those endless ourskirt eara can be called urban. is there cinimas? restrurants? KTV?public facilities(library,museum) in those earas?


----------



## Mr. Uncut (Jan 13, 2008)

oliver999 said:


> i've never been to western countries, i dont know ,if those endless ourskirt eara can be called urban. is there cinimas? restrurants? KTV?public facilities(library,museum) in those earas?


yep, but it's quite diffrent from east asian entertaiment areas!


----------



## null (Dec 11, 2002)

Shanghai, 20km from Lujiazui:


----------



## Metro007 (Apr 18, 2011)

Thanks for showing some maps of Shangai, but the are no scale so that it's very difficult to compare with other cities ;-)

But i really don't think it is larger than LA because of the big density of Shangai for two comparable populations (LA: about 15 Mio and Shangai perhaps 18?). And Shangai should be more than twice as dense as LA. So automatically the urban area of LA should be larger. I dont know how to compare in Google Earth two cities at the same scale, but perhaps someone can post them at the same scale, so that we can compare them ;-)


----------



## oliver999 (Aug 4, 2006)

Metro007 said:


> Thanks for showing some maps of Shangai, but the are no scale so that it's very difficult to compare with other cities ;-)
> 
> But i really don't think it is larger than LA because of the big density of Shangai for two comparable populations (LA: about 15 Mio and Shangai perhaps 18?). And Shangai should be more than twice as dense as LA. So automatically the urban area of LA should be larger. I dont know how to compare in Google Earth two cities at the same scale, but perhaps someone can post them at the same scale, so that we can compare them ;-)


shanghai population is 23 million,10 million live in center districts.13million live in surburb districts. by 2010 goverment statistics. a high rise can contain at least 5 times of townhouses. so definitely ,if you are talking about sprawl,LA is much bigger.


----------



## Substructure (Sep 10, 2004)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_largest_cities

By *morphology *:
Tokyo
Delhi
Seoul
Jakarta
Manila
Mumbai
New York City
São Paulo
Mexico City
Shanghai
Cairo

By *population *:
Tokyo
Guangzhou
Seoul
Shanghai
Delhi
Mumbai
Mexico City
New York City
São Paulo
Manila
Jakarta

Tokyo is first by area, morphology, function and population, making it #1 in every criteria.


----------



## Rekarte (Mar 28, 2008)

I think the largest urban aglomeration is the Pearl River Delta,Guangzhou to Hong Kong:yes:


----------



## oliver999 (Aug 4, 2006)

Substructure said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_largest_cities
> 
> 
> By *population *:
> ...


guangzhou ahead of shanghai by population?


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

^Guangzhou-Dongguan-Shenzhen is contiguous (not near each other, but actually merged into one another), population 30 million. If you were to count the west side of the Pearl River metropolis too it would become the world's largest city, over 40 million.


----------



## Metro007 (Apr 18, 2011)

Do someone have a more impressive view of a megalopolis?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAG7k-ClYVg&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL5971A2E6144030E2


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

^^








the spliff fairy said:


> ^Guangzhou-Dongguan-Shenzhen is contiguous (not near each other, but actually merged into one another), population 30 million. If you were to count the west side of the Pearl River metropolis too it would become the world's largest city, over 40 million.


But how contiguous? One might say Philadelphia-New York-Hartford is contiguous as well.




Substructure said:


> Tokyo is first by area, morphology, function and population, making it #1 in every criteria.


That list is about population. We're discussing area. New York is the largest.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

Yuri S Andrade said:


> But how contiguous? One might say Philadelphia-New York-Hartford is contiguous as well.


No, NYC-Philly is separated by tracts of countryside even in their farthest reaches of their suburbs.

Guangzhou-Dongguan-Shenzhen is united as one large, dense and highrise strip, you would cross busy streets to go
from one city to another.

This is the 'thinnest' of the divide-lines - between Guangzhou, 12 million (top left across the river bank)
and Dongguan 8 million (bottom right). It's very high density I may add.










The built up area is represented below in pink, as you can see Dongguan merges directly into Shenzhen at the bottom.
Everything on the right hand side is contiguous, and counts over 30 million (HK is not included due to the border). 
The left hand side is more broken up and thus isn't counted:


----------



## megacity30 (Oct 8, 2011)

Yuri S Andrade said:


> ^^


*Wow... what a video! The urban area of Sao Paulo is undoubtedly the most massive sea of buildings in the Americas as well as in the entire Western Hemisphere. 
In the Eastern Hemisphere, the YRD centered on Shanghai, Keihinyo centered on Tokyo and the PRD centered on Guangzhou are the most massive seas of buildings.

*



> But how contiguous? One might say Philadelphia-New York-Hartford is contiguous as well.


*Yes, you're absolutely correct.*



> That list is about population. We're discussing area. New York is the largest.


----------



## Rekarte (Mar 28, 2008)

The "Turn The Pearl River Delta Into One" scheme will create a 16,000 sq mile urban area that is 26 times larger geographically than Greater London, or twice the size of Wales:yes:

*http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...city-in-the-world-with-42-million-people.html*


----------



## megacity30 (Oct 8, 2011)

*New York - Delaware Valley - Knowledge Corridor: 45842 sq km*

The New York City CSA - Delaware Valley - Knowledge Corridor is undoubtedly the world's largest contiguous urban + suburban area of *45,842 sq km*.

Over 30 million (30,395,829) people live in this contiguous stretch.

Yes, this urban area is far less dense than other massive urban areas such as Tokyo and the PRD, but American cities are inherently designed to be less dense, even within their urban cores.

The metropolitan area would have included Atlantic City and Allentown as well, bringing their consolidated population to a little over 31.5 million. However, both cities have a few km of countryside as a gap and are not completely contiguous with this massive urban area and are, therefore, excluded.

To visualize this better, please look at the map below; the deeply shaded areas indicate core urban areas and lightly shaded areas indicate suburban areas:-




















These maps show how the New York City urban area has merged with the Delaware Valley, centred on Philadelphia, along one prominent axis. 
There are several urban areas beyond Allentown that are n close proximity but none are contiguous yet.

As per the 2010 Census, 22,085,649 people live in 30,670 sq km of New York City's consolidated area. Also, 6,398,896 people live in 13,256 sq km of the Delaware Valley, centred on Philadelphia.

References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Metropolitan_Area

http://media.photobucket.com/image/new%20york%20city%20-%20philadelphia%20metropolitan%20area/chicagogeorge/48543861.gif

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


Furthermore, the Knowledge Corridor consisting of the twin cities of Hartford and Springfield, is contiguous with the north-eastern arm of New York City's contiguous urban area.










The satellite map shows how the Knowledge Corridor is one contiguous urban area. 
Reference: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/Springfield_ma_from_space.jpg

The following map shows how the Knowledge Corridor is contiguous on its southern side with New York City's north-eastern sprawl in Connecticut State.









Reference: http://beyonddc.com/features/compare/maps/hartford-springfield.jpg

The Knowledge Corridor has an area of 1916 sq km with 1.9 million residents.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

Im not sure I'd call large areas like this contiguous:










It looks like your typical Western European countryside. Give it a few more years maybe.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

^^
I checked on GE and just southeast of it, we indeed have a contiguous urban sprawl. And why all this comparison with Europe? American cities are less dense. Everybody knows it.

My point is: if Guangzhou-Dongguan-Shenzhen forms a single urban spot, the same is true for Philadelphia-Northern New Jersey-New York-Bridgeport-New Haven-Hartford-Springfield.


----------



## Dralcoffin (Feb 27, 2010)

oliver999 said:


> guangzhou ahead of shanghai by population?


That list is originally from citypopulation.de and the high Guangzhou total is due to the site taking the sum of Guangzhou, Foshan, and Dongguan.


----------



## Metro007 (Apr 18, 2011)

Yuri S Andrade said:


> ^^


Not bad! A more vertical city than L.A. ;-)

But it really seems NY is the largest:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPb1JlYQrp8


----------



## Dralcoffin (Feb 27, 2010)

Metro007 said:


> But it really seems NY is the largest:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPb1JlYQrp8


As well, that video starts when the plane is already over Staten Island, within the compact (for US cities) city limits. What gives New York the title of physically largest city are the vast sprawling tentacles that have consumed seventy miles of Long Island, stretch up the Hudson another seventy miles to Poughkeepsie, and cover literally one third of New Jersey.


----------



## Metro007 (Apr 18, 2011)

Dralcoffin said:


> As well, that video starts when the plane is already over Staten Island, within the compact (for US cities) city limits. What gives New York the title of physically largest city are the vast sprawling tentacles that have consumed seventy miles of Long Island, stretch up the Hudson another seventy miles to Poughkeepsie, and cover literally one third of New Jersey.


Yes of course, you're right. The video only shows the "heart" of NY.

I just looked once again at Spotila's maps. NY is still missing but talking about Sao Paulo: it's about 3 times (!) smaller than the urban area of LA (but of course SP is much more dense). It's amazing i know but it looks like Sao Paulo "just" has the size of the San Bernardino-Valley inluded Riverside and Moreno Valley in the east of L.A., who will only be about 1/3 of the whole urban area of L.A. I think Sao Paulo would be comparable with Paris or London when talking about the size. Here are the maps (dont forget to zoom both in):

Sao Paul: http://i.imgur.com/NriU2.jpg
Los Angeles: http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/2001/la100.jpg

Because of the rivers/islands around NY you are talking about i am still convinced that the biggest one-sized urban area in the world (without any interruption) is L.A.

But when talking about a "megalopolis" the BOS-WASH-area should be the largest in the world.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

^both the 'Blue Banana' and Yangtze River Delta are larger, more than twice the population.

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










"The urban build-up in the area has given rise what may be the largest concentration of adjacent metropolitan areas in the world". Population 105 
million, of which 80 million are urban.

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

Blue Banana

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










"The Blue Banana holds an economically advantageous position through its population density, which is at an urban level for long stretches; and its
infrastructure" population 110 million.

Hence the comparison of the earlier satellite pic with Western Europe.

Look at the countryside around London (ignore the city itself), and the dense peppering of high density urban developments in pink, especially
as you head inland to the west. This peppering stretches across the continent in an arc, from northern England through to northern Italy.
It looks like one vast US style suburb/green belt. England alone manages to cram 50 million urbanites into an area the size of Maine.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

Yuri S Andrade said:


> ^^
> I checked on GE and just southeast of it, we indeed have a contiguous urban sprawl. And why all this comparison with Europe? American cities are less dense. Everybody knows it.


I checked it out too, I really don't see it. I just get more fragmented forest and suburbs/ farm fields. Can you do a screenshot?


----------



## megacity30 (Oct 8, 2011)

The suburban axis connecting New York City and Philadelphia is the densest, most highly populated suburban area in North America, that is not officially one urban area yet. Due only to historical and political reasons, New York City and its two arms, Philadelphia and Hartford, have still been designated independent urban areas.

However, if you drive along or trace along the I-95, Highway 27 and Highway 130, here is what the "gap" between the urban areas looks like in Google satellite view:

Between NY CSA and Delaware Valley:


----------



## megacity30 (Oct 8, 2011)

And the "gap" between the NYC urban area and Hartford along I-91 and Highway-15:


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

^ There really is no gap of development between NYC and Hartford when driving to either but commuting percentages are still not enough to make Hartford get into the NYC metro area. Hartford has it's own economic base to sustain itself on (Insurance and government). That is what matters most to the Census Bureau when designating metro areas, not sprawl in itself.

There are no real rural areas between Hartford and Springfield, Mass as well BTW.

It's almost a total urban experience from Springfield all the way to Northern Virginia. That has to be almost 600 km!


----------



## megacity30 (Oct 8, 2011)

Xusein said:


> ^ There really is no gap of development between NYC and Hartford when driving to either but commuting percentages are still not enough to make Hartford get into the NYC metro area. Hartford has it's own economic base to sustain itself on (Insurance and government). That is what matters most to the Census Bureau when , not sprawl.
> 
> There are no real rural areas between Hartford and Springfield, Mass as well BTW.
> 
> It's almost a total urban experience from Springfield all the way to Northern Virginia. That has to be almost 600 km!


Yes, that's true there is no gap in development along any of the highways / freeways connecting NYC and Hartford.

However, when we're talking about urban areas (mega-cities), urban contiguity is the primary consideration and not commutes at all.

Commutes are a consideration when discussing metropolitan areas (megapolises / mega-metropolises). However, in this thread we're discussing urban areas and not metropolitan areas. There are very large gaps of countryside between Boston and Springfield as well as between Wilmington - Newark and Baltimore. So there is no way "Bos-Wash" is one urban area at all!


----------



## oliver999 (Aug 4, 2006)

shanghai with his brother suzhou


----------



## megacity30 (Oct 8, 2011)

oliver999 said:


> shanghai with his brother suzhou


What about Shanghai and his brother?


----------



## megacity30 (Oct 8, 2011)

the spliff fairy said:


> yep, the Yangtze River Delta counts 120 million, *of which 80 million are urbanites. * These 80 million are just as closely, if not far, far more interconnected, and dense than any US style suburbia, sprawl or metro CSA catchment.
> 
> Also at the very least, and very strictest, Shanghai and Suzhou are directly, urbanly-contiguous (not suburban-contiguous that is often spread out sparsely with open land and forest) - as in crossing from an urban street in Shanghai on one side to another urban street in Suzhou on the other.


Spliff Fairy, I'm sure I speak for many other SSC members when I say I always enjoy reading your insightful and well-written posts. 

I did zoom into satellite view and agree that Suzhou has urban contiguity with Kunshan in Shanghai Municipality.

However, the big difference between the metro CSA catchment between NYC and Philly and Shanghai - Suzhou remains the work - residence restrictions imposed by Hukou. These restrictions require permanent residence in a certain municipality or province and discourage daily inter-province commutes based on work or residence. However, the metro CSAs in the USA are a cohesive unit based on at least 15% of the population of each of its cities and towns commuting daily across the region / entire urban area. 
For Shanghai and Suzhou to truly become one urban area, unrestricted daily commuter flow based on socio-economic needs is a pre-requisite.

Both Jiangsu and Zhejiang have been making minor strides in this direction since 2005 especially for highly qualified workers, but there's still a long way to go. Shanghai Municipality, unfortunately, has been making its Hukou requirements more elusive.


----------



## Metro007 (Apr 18, 2011)

the spliff fairy said:


> Sure, the Chinese megapolitans may not be all contiguous but er, low density?? You do realise the Pearl River Delta/ Yangtze River Delta fit 45 million urbanites into the equivalent size of LA?


Yes of course you're right. But i was talking about the urban-continuation, that means how many of the ground is built-up. I can imagine that even outside the big city-centers there are a lot of people living but there are also a lot of green fields beetween the houses. I think chinese people are used to live on a very small area, so that in one little house (where in Europe or US a family of 4-5 persons is living) there can easily be 10-15 persons living. The land-consumption per capita for living is much smaller in China. 

I would estimate that if less than 40% of the land-area isn't build up i personnaly wouldn't count it to the main city-core.

But of course it can be discussed ;-)


----------



## Metro007 (Apr 18, 2011)

null said:


> OMG!


Yes i did not express myself well enough, sorry. I was talking about the density of the built-up area and not the density of people living there. If we talk about population you're right of course (read ma previous post).


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

megacity30 said:


> Spliff Fairy, I'm sure I speak for many other SSC members when I say I always enjoy reading your insightful and well-written posts.
> 
> I did zoom into satellite view and agree that Suzhou has urban contiguity with Kunshan in Shanghai Municipality.
> 
> ...


I really don't think just by having 15% commuters (and 85% not) between two physically separated cities does one city make (can you imagine the size of the CSA's in Europe based on that criteria?). However having two cities physically morphed into each other, whereby you cross from one busy, urban side of the street to the other - and no distinction other than name, does - whether or not the residents are registered on the right or left side. To add, they still work, shop, eat and play on either side.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

to be clear the dividing line between Suzhou suburbs/ hukou (left) and Shanghai suburbs / hukou (right). The arrow points to the main highway between the two cities.


----------



## LondonFox (Nov 4, 2010)

Shanghai looks like a horrendous place to live.. look at all of that smog and dirt ... it was terrible in Beijing when I visited earlier this year.. but Shanghai looks even worse.. yuk.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

Metro007 said:


> Yes of course you're right. But i was talking about the urban-continuation, that means how many of the ground is built-up. I can imagine that even outside the big city-centers there are a lot of people living but there are also a lot of green fields beetween the houses. I think chinese people are used to live on a very small area, so that in one little house (where in Europe or US a family of 4-5 persons is living) there can easily be 10-15 persons living. The land-consumption per capita for living is much smaller in China.
> 
> I would estimate that if less than 40% of the land-area isn't build up i personnaly wouldn't count it to the main city-core.
> 
> But of course it can be discussed ;-)


Of course its not the main city core, those pics are of the _countryside_ - not even the suburbs, and not considered as part of any city - it just looks it, physically.

To be clear this is the city centre, the world's largest. The prominent dots are some of the 5000 highrise skrapers.











this is the suburbia, taken about 17 miles/ 28 km from the centre. The suburbs each have their own multinodal city centres too, which are just as dense as the centre I may add. The lines of buildings are highrises - this is where the council has to plant up to 3000 newcomers a day, so why it's so dense. 











this is the 'countryside', to the same scale as the other pics, taken about 70 miles from the centre (112 km) - and that stretches another 80 miles on the other side of the delta. This is what you see from the train (its the line at the bottom) from Hangzhou, which is only a few more km away. Every building you see is a crowded midrise apartment block, despite the rentable fields. Notice the light industry too (huge blue roofed factories), which is the mainstay of the areas economy - bear in mind the scale bottom left. This is NOT your typical Chinese countryside, but the 'mouth of the dragon' - no other councils and rural collectives in the country are rich enough to build free apartment blocks for their farmers.










^this is what is in question. Imo it's not a functioning part of the city, but in terms of built environment it bloody well looks it I have to say. In terms of built footprint size its quite comparable to US suburbia:











Take the train from Ningbo to Shanghai via Hangzhou, its about a 150 mile trip through the Yangtze River Delta. This is all you see, and believe it or not, it's the rural half (the urban half is further inland in the other direction, to the west). The track is also slightly elevated, so the view is good. SOMEONE PLEASE DO THIS TRIP! (and sit on the left, in the corridor)


----------



## Metro007 (Apr 18, 2011)

Thanks spliff fairy. I would like once to do this trip you made by train of course to see by myself! ;-)

Question: is your last picture at the same place (or same kind of) as your second-last picture (map) ? Because looking at this google-map it really looks like being more green than being urban. But i have to admit, that on your last picture, i would also say that this is an urban landscape, even if i have to say it is a very low density built-up area (no comparaison with L.A. who is completely built up on 120 Km x 50 Km. But it looks much more urban than on the map. Is it perhaps a kind of visuall effect? From the side it gives the impression of being pretty urban and from the plane it looks like a lot of small villages ?

So now we not only have to ask us at which density we can consider a suburban area being part of an urban area, but also from which angle we have to look at it :nuts:


----------



## oliver999 (Aug 4, 2006)

Metro007 said:


> Thanks spliff fairy. I would like once to do this trip you made by train of course to see by myself! ;-)
> 
> Question: is your last picture at the same place (or same kind of) as your second-last picture (map) ? Because looking at this google-map it really looks like being more green than being urban. But i have to admit, that on your last picture, i would also say that this is an urban landscape, even if i have to say it is a very low density built-up area (no comparaison with L.A. who is completely built up on 120 Km x 50 Km. But it looks much more urban than on the map. Is it perhaps a kind of visuall effect? From the side it gives the impression of being pretty urban and from the plane it looks like a lot of small villages ?
> 
> So now we not only have to ask us at which density we can consider a suburban area being part of an urban area, but also from which angle we have to look at it :nuts:


if you take a high speed train ,from shanghai to changzhou ,the highrieses and urban eara continuiously.


----------



## oliver999 (Aug 4, 2006)

LondonFox said:


> Shanghai looks like a horrendous place to live.. look at all of that smog and dirt ... it was terrible in Beijing when I visited earlier this year.. but Shanghai looks even worse.. yuk.


if we solve pollution problem someday, do you have some other excuses to make you stand on a highland towards china?


----------



## Baleares (Feb 12, 2012)

If you take a look at São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro urban sprawl you can see that it could be the largest or the second largest.... What? Something about 40 million people...


----------



## Metro007 (Apr 18, 2011)

Baleares said:


> If you take a look at São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro urban sprawl you can see that it could be the largest or the second largest.... What? Something about 40 million people...


Are you talking about the size or only the amount of population? Whatever, in both cases Sao Paulo is far away of being the largest or the second largest one urban area. And i doubt that the area beetween Sao Paulo and Rio is continious. In that case you have to compare the Sao Paulo/Rio-area for example with the Blue Banana or the Bos-Wash or the Tokyo / Osaka-area or the chinese big cities we were talking about. All of them have a lot more than 40 Mio inhabitants.


----------



## Baleares (Feb 12, 2012)

40 million is just and estimate... Actually it is 43 million people. 

Probably Rio - São Paulo urban sprawl is an urban complex. Not a megalopolis like Tokyo/Osaka. But we can assume that it will be in the near future.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

Metro007 said:


> Thanks spliff fairy. I would like once to do this trip you made by train of course to see by myself! ;-)
> 
> Question: is your last picture at the same place (or same kind of) as your second-last picture (map) ? Because looking at this google-map it really looks like being more green than being urban. But i have to admit, that on your last picture, i would also say that this is an urban landscape, even if i have to say it is a very low density built-up area (no comparaison with L.A. who is completely built up on 120 Km x 50 Km. But it looks much more urban than on the map. Is it perhaps a kind of visuall effect? From the side it gives the impression of being pretty urban and from the plane it looks like a lot of small villages ?
> 
> So now we not only have to ask us at which density we can consider a suburban area being part of an urban area, but also from which angle we have to look at it :nuts:



Yep it is a kind of visual effect. Basically the buildings are multiple stories so they merge with one another and block out the fields in between, especially to the horizon (the track is slightly elevated). Also the whole area is interspersed with towns and cities which even if you aren't passing through them you can see on the horizon. I did the trip in 2003 - it took me years to work out why Hangzhou was so much bigger than Shanghai - I found out this enormous, neverending city was in fact the countryside. Do the trip! Itll blow you away...


----------



## ukiyo (Aug 5, 2008)

^ I don't know, I have travelled from Shanghai to Hangzhou just last year (check my signature)...I don't get the "megalopolis" feeling at all once there was some distance from Shanghai..at least nothing like the Kanto/Kansai plains.

Alot of the outskirts of Shanghai looked like this










Pic I took from the bus to Hangzhou.

Haining which is intermediary of Shanghai and Hangzhou has extensive parts like this


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

that REALLY wasnt my experience - did you sit on the right (coming from Shanghai)?

I took the trip from Hong Kong to Shanghai, the 'cityscape' thing started well before Hangzhou (when we pulled into Hangzhou station I nearly got off thinking it was Shanghai). Im sure it must be the same line from Hangzhou onward to Shanghai.


----------



## ukiyo (Aug 5, 2008)

Doesn't really matter where I sat..extensive parts of the trip are like this. In fact, it seems like right after you leave the city boundaries it becomes kind of rural...or should I say un-urban. I don't really know the word for what the chinese "urban" landscape is like...but it's not really anything at all like the built up "metro" areas of Korea or Japan (and even some US metros). I had a video of taking the HSR between the cities..but unfortunately my account was closed for posting japanese music so it's lost forever 

I think if we are only comparing to US "metropolitan" areas...than some chinese "megacities" that you are pointing out maybe should be counted. Because some of the "suburbs" counted for the US are basically rural. But when compared to others, like Seoul or Keihanshin they should be in a different category. I think the entire comparisons of what is a "city" and what isn't is kind of pointless. If Shanghai to Hangzhou should be a city, than "Seoul" should extend much further, and so should the japanese metros.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

ok wait a sec, are those pics by car?


----------



## ukiyo (Aug 5, 2008)

I have done the trip by bus and HSR. I was there twice in 2011, and once in 2006 or so. Did you read my post at all? Thought I explained everything :dunno:


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

ok, re-read your post. Man do it by train! Its more elevated up - you can see the horizon, and the huge mass of housing, not just the first few fields and houses on either side. Also go south east from Hangzhou to Ningbo that's even denser.


----------



## oliver999 (Aug 4, 2006)

shanghai-jiangsu sprawl is much more urban than shanghai-zhejiang sprawl.


----------



## Metro007 (Apr 18, 2011)

@Bauhaus: nice pics but what is the contribution of your pictures to the discussion 'biggest city' ?

So i think the following ranking could be perhaps accepted by most of the people here (of what can be the largest city - and not megalopolis):

1. L.A.
2. NY
3. Tokyo
4. Shangai?

I think BA or Sao Paulo (both about the same size) could be in the first 10...

Otherwise can you post a map of the urban area and show the scale ( but please only of continued uban-area who is built up at more than 70%). That would be my personal proposal. What do you think?


----------



## null (Dec 11, 2002)

Shanghai and NY? I suggest you check out Nagoya and its vicinity first.


----------



## Metro007 (Apr 18, 2011)

Ok i deleted my first post...possible that Nagoya is larger than Shangai...i will check it on google earth. But never larger than NY ;-)

Please don't hesitate to post some comparaison maps with a scale so that we can establish a ranking-list (if it is allowed?). It would be interesting.


----------



## null (Dec 11, 2002)

Nantong (China) Vicinity:


----------



## megacity30 (Oct 8, 2011)

^^
Where is the urban area in that map of Nantong?
It all appears a vast dense rural area.


----------



## Severiano (Jul 5, 2006)

It is nearly impossible to measure what the largest city. Especially since city means something different in different cultures. I was doing a pub quiz and one of the categories was largest city. I was really pissed off, because it is extremely arbitrary and based of which list the guy happened to look at. I have seen a wide assortment of articles, lists, and such. I have seen Shanghai, Seoul, Tokyo, Mumbai, Chongqing and NY all listed as the largest cities. Based on the research I have seen and my own personal opinion I would say Tokyo, but take that with a grain of salt. City populations and the length of coastlines are impossible to rank.


----------



## null (Dec 11, 2002)

Define 'urban' and 'rural', most cities we've talked about here have very vast rural areas.


----------



## null (Dec 11, 2002)

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

_Cities proper _by population:

This is a list of the most populous cities in the world defined according to a concept of city proper (an urban locality without its suburbs). A city proper is a locality defined according to legal or political boundaries and an administratively recognized urban status that is usually characterized by some form of local government.[1][2][3]

"World Urbanization Prospects", a United Nations publication, defines the population of a city proper as "the population living within the administrative boundaries of a city."[4] The book continues to say that "city proper as defined by administrative boundaries may not include suburban areas where an important proportion of the population working or studying in the city lives."

The term city can take on many meanings in different parts of the world. For the purposes of this list, the definition of a city as a primarily urban locality is used. This list enumerates the populations of some of the world's largest cities, the boundaries of which may or may not correspond to those of municipalities. The populations listed are for the administratively defined city and not for the urban area nor the metropolitan area. Statistical definitions for each city, approximate surface area, and population density are also indicated.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

megacity30 said:


> ^^
> Where is the urban area in that map of Nantong?
> It all appears a vast dense rural area.


Go to google earth and zoom in. 'Rural' yes but bear in mind all those houses are apartment blocks, everything with a blue roof is a factory complex.


----------



## ParadiseLost (Feb 1, 2011)

the spliff fairy said:


> the delta cities, fast connecting up:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


IS that a population density map? Where did you get it. I don't really understand the link. Thanks!


----------



## ParadiseLost (Feb 1, 2011)

Baleares said:


> If you take a look at São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro urban sprawl you can see that it could be the largest or the second largest.... What? Something about 40 million people...


Hahaha I did that trip by bus last year and there's no way in hell that's a contiguous area! And it won't be for at least another 100 years. They really should build an HSR between the two though. One of the most obvious places in the world to build one.


----------



## Metro007 (Apr 18, 2011)

null said:


> Nantong (China) Vicinity:


That' not what i would call urban...there are a lot of green fields.


----------



## Metro007 (Apr 18, 2011)

Severiano said:


> It is nearly impossible to measure what the largest city. Especially since city means something different in different cultures. I was doing a pub quiz and one of the categories was largest city. I was really pissed off, because it is extremely arbitrary and based of which list the guy happened to look at. I have seen a wide assortment of articles, lists, and such. I have seen Shanghai, Seoul, Tokyo, Mumbai, Chongqing and NY all listed as the largest cities. Based on the research I have seen and my own personal opinion I would say Tokyo, but take that with a grain of salt. City populations and the length of coastlines are impossible to rank.


I absolutely agree wit you. Tokyo and NYC should be the largest in that list (for my point of view). But where is LA? ;-)


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

yep urban:










































Fair enough^


But if so 'Rural'?: Imo it's quite urban, in everything but name. Because they rent their fields out while they work in the factory complexes isn't a be all and end
all to the demographic experience. Surely it count's for something? I dunno, built environment, population density, contiguousness to the real city
suburbs? - all beats the suburbs and exurbs in other parts of the world.


----------



## VECTROTALENZIS (Jul 10, 2010)

^^

They aren't part of the central big city. They don't commute because the infrastructure isn't so good in the countryside, they just stay where they are and farm all day.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

uh-huh, so do these guys - Huaxi village recently built itself a supertall, the Farmers Apartments. They became so rich from agribusiness (much of the fields are now housed under intelligent greenhouses), then diversifying into steel, textiles, logistics and now tourism. Yes it's a village, and its classed as rural. 36,000 live in its 1 sq km boundaries.


----------



## megacity30 (Oct 8, 2011)

catty3979 said:


> Yes, exactly New York.





the spliff fairy said:


> uh-huh, so do these guys - Huaxi village recently built itself a supertall, the Farmers Apartments. They became so rich from agribusiness (much of the fields are now housed under intelligent greenhouses), then diversifying into steel, textiles, logistics and now tourism. Yes it's a village, and its classed as rural. 36,000 live in its 1 sq km boundaries.


The urban and suburban belt between New York City and Philadelphia is one of the most urban regions in the USA and Canada. Not rows of farmers' communal dwellings! Isn't Huaxi an exception rather than the norm? If all these thousands of villages were like Huaxi, China would already be an economically developed country because many of its urban areas are already economically developed!


----------



## megacity30 (Oct 8, 2011)

When considering only the contiguously built-up urban area of only mono-core urban areas, New York City's urban area containing 20.464 million people in an area of 11,642 sq km is still the world's largest city (mono-core contiguously built-up urban area).

a reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_areas_by_population


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

No, the villages around the Yangtze River Delta are like this, not elsewhere in China - dense, multistoried, modern and with many factory complexes. Huaxi is the richest one of the lot - but look beyond the square km of its limits and youll see the buildings of other villages. They may not have the villas (or the whopping great supertall), but they're just as built up.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

megacity30 said:


> The urban and suburban belt between New York City and Philadelphia is one of the most urban regions in the USA and Canada.


And this is not one of the most urban regions in North America (if it is, it explains alot). This is the gap in the Princeton area, north of Trenton.
Alot of fields and alot of forest:


----------



## megacity30 (Oct 8, 2011)

the spliff fairy said:


> No, the villages around the Yangtze River Delta are like this, not elsewhere in China - dense, multistoried, modern and with many factory complexes. Huaxi is the richest one of the lot - but look beyond the square km of its limits and youll see the buildings of other villages. They may not have the villas (or the whopping great supertall), but they're just as built up.


spliff fairy, are you proposing the 99,600 sq. km area of the Yangtze River Delta, that's economically, socially and politically separated by Hukou restrictions, and containing over 30 million farmers (including their families) is one urban area?


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

no, but alot of it could be if you consider the same for US style suburbia in the forests and farmland areas.

You may say theyre politically separated by the hukou registration system - but theyre not separated physically, or economically, or socially (as in you can live in one hukou, but work, play and socialise in another). You may not be allowed to buy a house there, but you can commute. Also the Yangtze River Delta happens to be the largest collection of adjacent urban areas in the world (over 80 million urbanites).


----------



## megacity30 (Oct 8, 2011)

The Ivy League town of Princeton is one of the world's leading university towns and centres of academic research; it is completely urban - no people here with farming as their primary occupation. This is reason why there are so many open spaces surrounding it. Also, American towns and cities are much less dense than Asian cities; that is how they are designed. 

We should look at the gap between Trenton and NY's urban area as a whole and not focus only on the fields surrounding its university town. As provided earlier on page 5 of this thread, this is the "gap" between the NYC urban area and Hartford along I-91 and Highway-15 and it's population is completely urban (no primary farmers here):



















































Not just that; even if we consider only the mono-core urban areas (the modern equivalent of one city), New York City's urban area is still the largest in the world area-wise.


----------



## megacity30 (Oct 8, 2011)

The suburban axis connecting New York City and Philadelphia is the densest, most highly populated suburban area in North America, that is not officially one urban area yet. Due only to historical and political reasons, New York City and its two arms, Philadelphia and Hartford, have still been designated independent urban areas.

However, if you drive along or trace along the I-95, Highway 27 and Highway 130, here is what the "gap" between the urban areas looks like in Google satellite view:

Between NY CSA and Delaware Valley:


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

er, yeah but that's in the wrong direction. Hartford's north of NYC, Philly's south. With the big gap of Princeton as shown


----------



## megacity30 (Oct 8, 2011)

the spliff fairy said:


> no, but alot of it could be if you consider the same for US style suburbia in the forests and farmland areas.
> 
> You may say theyre politically separated by the hukou registration system - but theyre not separated physically, or economically, or socially (as in you can live in one hukou, but work, play and socialise in another). You may not be allowed to buy a house there, but you can commute. Also the Yangtze River Delta happens to be the largest collection of adjacent urban areas in the world (over 80 million urbanites).


Hukou is not just political; it has huge economic and social repercussions.

While the intention of Hukou was exemplary in the way that it prevented uncontrolled migration, thus preventing huge slum proliferation that you see in South Asia, it also serves as a barrier between Shanghai Municipality and the people living in its adjoining Provinces.


----------



## megacity30 (Oct 8, 2011)

the spliff fairy said:


> er, yeah but that's in the wrong direction. Hartford's north of NYC, Philly's south. With the big gap of Princeton as shown


please check out post# 186.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

ok I get ya

this is on your I-95. Im sorry but this is defintely a gap imo. Its south of the Monroe township area. This is less dense than much of Western Europe's countryside.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

megacity30 said:


> Hukou is not just political; it has huge economic and social repercussions.
> 
> While the intention of Hukou was exemplary in the way that it prevented uncontrolled migration, thus preventing huge slum proliferation that you see in South Asia, it also serves as a barrier between Shanghai Municipality and the people living in its adjoining Provinces.


Yep this is why all those village collectives invest in thousands of factory complexes, and build their own highrises and villas outside the urban areas. In effect they bring the city to the country. This doesnt mean though that they can't set foot outside their hukou or something, or work etc, just that they need a permit to live in another. Its prevented people moving to the cities en masse, but its also bought all the economic and urban set ups into the country, in this part of the region anyway.


----------



## megacity30 (Oct 8, 2011)

the spliff fairy said:


> ok I get ya
> 
> this is on your I-95. Im sorry but this is defintely a gap imo. Its south of the Monroe township area. This is less dense than much of Western Europe's countryside.


spliff fairy, you are a worthy adversary indeed.

However, even if we consider only the mono-core urban areas (the modern equivalent of one city), New York City's urban area is still the largest in the world area-wise.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

that youd have to take up with someone else, Ive no idea! What's a mono-core urban area?


----------



## megacity30 (Oct 8, 2011)

the spliff fairy said:


> that youd have to take up with someone else, Ive no idea! What's a mono-core urban area?


A mono-core urban area is like Greater London that has only one city as its primary centre. 

Poly-core urban areas are like the Rhein Ruhr, Yangtze River Delta, Pearl River Delta, New York City - Philadelphia, Manchester - Liverpool etc.


----------



## null (Dec 11, 2002)

Metro007 said:


> That' not what i would call urban...there are a lot of green fields.


You should have a closer look at the 'dirts' of NYC or Nagoya, there are more fields out there. But I still consider them _continuously built_.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

ok I get it I think, one city with one centre (and one name), as opposed to cities that are physically connected or physically morphed into one another etc.

Ive heard Atlanta?

LA, Tokyo are other contenders (but Tokyo has Yokohama, LA Burbank etc?)


----------



## null (Dec 11, 2002)

Nantong (Qidong), 'Rural' Density:



z0rg said:


> Chongqi Bridge, linking Chongming Island and Jiangsu Province. 6.84km.


----------



## megacity30 (Oct 8, 2011)

the spliff fairy said:


> ok I get it I think, one city with one centre (and one name), as opposed to cities that are physically connected or physically morphed into one another etc.
> 
> Ive heard Atlanta?
> 
> LA, Tokyo are other contenders (but Tokyo has Yokohama, LA Burbank etc?)


Please refer to the following wiki link and sort by area (ascending order):-

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

New York City's urban area is by far the largest in area.

And not surprising either; American cities are designed to be amongst the least dense in the world.


----------



## megacity30 (Oct 8, 2011)

null said:


> Nantong (Qidong), 'Rural' Density:


Please don't mislead us by stating that's rural.
Chongqi bridge connects two highly urban areas.

The bridge directly connects Chenjia Township in Chongming County (in the south) to Qidong, a county-level *city* in Jiangsu Province (to its north).

Nothing rural here at all!


----------



## null (Dec 11, 2002)

^^

Man, are you serious? And since when is Chongming _*HIGHLY URBAN*_?

Qidong City (upper middle) is actully miles away from the bridge (a thin line above the river):

The yellow line = 7.53 km.











Google Earth it.


----------



## megacity30 (Oct 8, 2011)

null said:


> ^^
> 
> Man, are you serious? And since when is Chongming _*HIGHLY URBAN*_?
> 
> ...


Chongming isn't highly urban but Chenjia township is. In any case, the beautiful pictures you posted don't show Chenjia as it's much further inland towards the south. 

What you are focussing on in the satellite map is Huilong township that is the centre of Qidong City. However, Qidong City also contains 24 townships such as those seen in the pictures, and there is also the provincial economic development zone that also can't be seen in the pictures. Let's remember, this is Qidong City's main connection to Shanghai via Chongming.

a reference: http://www.jiangsu.net/city/city.php?name=qidong


----------



## megacity30 (Oct 8, 2011)

The point here is that if we only consider the continuously built-up urban areas centred on one city, New York City has the world's largest urban area (11,642 sq. km.).

a reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_areas_by_population


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

I can imagine Greater New York being large. The whole of Long Island is almost built up plus suburbs within Connecticut, New Jersey and Westchester County.

Plus a larger Boswash megalopolis.


----------



## null (Dec 11, 2002)

megacity30 said:


> Chongming isn't highly urban but Chenjia township is. In any case, the beautiful pictures you posted don't show Chenjia as it's much further inland towards the south.
> 
> What you are focussing on in the satellite map is Huilong township that is the centre of Qidong City. However, Qidong City also contains 24 townships such as those seen in the pictures, and there is also the provincial economic development zone that also can't be seen in the pictures. Let's remember, this is Qidong City's main connection to Shanghai via Chongming.
> 
> a reference: http://www.jiangsu.net/city/city.php?name=qidong


I dont see your point, usually towns are NOT considered URBAN in China, and there's not a town (just typical rural density) north to the Bridge.


----------



## null (Dec 11, 2002)

megacity30 said:


> The point here is that if we only consider the continuously built-up urban areas centred on one city, New York City has the world's largest urban area (11,642 sq. km.).
> 
> a reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_areas_by_population


I'd rather have this list, if we are mostly interested in built-up areas, not sparsely built areas. (Tokyo is much larger if you include Kawasaki, Yokohama and Yokosuka) 

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


----------



## megacity30 (Oct 8, 2011)

null said:


> I dont see your point, usually towns are NOT considered URBAN in China, and there's not a town (just typical rural density) north to the Bridge.


townships are urban; for example, Huilong township is the most urban part of Qidong city


----------



## megacity30 (Oct 8, 2011)

null said:


> I'd rather have this list, if we are mostly interested in built-up areas, not sparsely built areas. (Tokyo is much larger if you include Kawasaki, Yokohama and Yokosuka)
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_proper_by_population


That's just a list of the administrative limits of the city. Unlike China, in the rest of the world, the urban area is almost always much beyond the core administrative limit. 
Tokyo, Sao Paulo, New York City, Jakarta, Delhi, Mumbai, Manila, London, Los Angeles, Paris, Buenos Aires, Cairo etc etc... the list is just too large... thousands of cities and towns exhibit this pattern.

Therefore, a list of urban areas is far more meaningful in modern times, such as the one I'd provided earlier.


----------



## null (Dec 11, 2002)

That's a seriously flawed list, the size of areas must be sumed up using different criteria.

For example: 

Mumbai = 546 km2

Moscow = 4,403 km2


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

megacity30 said:


> townships are urban; for example, Huilong township is the most urban part of Qidong city


Those pics are not of Huilong - they may belong to a subdivision of township (the 5th and last level of subdivision in China), but they're still classed as 'rural'. Just look on Google Earth, regardless of how their named and which municipality they belong to, they blanket the entire area. Scroll north for thousands of sq miles, it's non-stop. If you claim that to be 'highly urban', what do you call the exact same pattern of development and density that blankets the area all the way to Rugao in the west, Rudong in the north, Qidong in the east? All of this, plus the larger areas south and west will all belong to townships.


Zooming in on the apartment blocks




















- note the preponderence of blue roofed factory complexes, set up by the 'rural' communes and the livelihood of the region:












Zooming out, this red-bordered screenshot is about 350 sq km











Everything on this map looks like that, from Rugao in the top left corner to Qidong bottom right











and that's just the northern area of the PRD:


----------



## Metro007 (Apr 18, 2011)

megacity30 said:


> The point here is that if we only consider the continuously built-up urban areas centred on one city, New York City has the world's largest urban area (11,642 sq. km.).
> 
> a reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_areas_by_population


That is perhaps true if we use these official definitons. But if we use only these definitions we shouldn't have to discuss about it here 

I am sorry but L.A. is slightly larger from my point of view because the city borders are very clear. And the whole urban area within these borders is just one block being urban without a doubt. New York has a lot of low density houses on Long Island like Atlanta, Chicago and every american city. And in my eyes such low-density areas aren't comparable with L.A. who is an entire concrete block of 130 x 60 km. I woudnt count either theses rural areas spliff fairy is showing us above to any urban area, because more green fields are covering these areas than constructions (houses, buildings or streets).

But i think it's always the same discussion and we are moving in a circle :nuts:


----------



## ParadiseLost (Feb 1, 2011)

Since when is the suburban region between Philly and New York the most urban suburban region in the states? These are for a big part old school suburbs which give them an extremely LOW density. This why is despite the very high density of the 8 million five borough area the 18 million New York urban area has a much lower density than urban LA (which has a large population with ~12 million as well).

Spiffy, the YRD is 100,000 sq km? And how many people live in that area? I mean seeing as that area is ten times as large as the New York urban area and the extremely suburban nature of the New York area, to even think of classifying that area as a contender it would have to hold at least ten times as many people as the New York area. So 200 million people.

Pearl river Delta has the same problem, not really connected which is reflected in the raw numbers 40 million people in 30k sq km. Or a bit more people than Tokyo in 5 times the area.

Imo the contenders are NYC, Tokyo and LA. If you want to have a real strict definition into what constitutes a city than it would be Tokyo, less strict LA and even less strict New York.


----------



## Metro007 (Apr 18, 2011)

@ParadiseLost: That's exactly the way i see it. And at the end (for conclusion) i would also say that Tokyo, L.A. and NY are the largest cities in the world...the chinese ones are slightly to small to compete (or tu rural) even there are pretty impressive and i would enjoy driving by train around Shangai or the pearl river delta one day


----------



## null (Dec 11, 2002)

Persoanlly I would take Greater Tokyo over anything else, NYC or LA are just too suburban to compete.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

ParadiseLost said:


> Spiffy, the YRD is 100,000 sq km? And how many people live in that area? I mean seeing as that area is ten times as large as the New York urban area and the extremely suburban nature of the New York area, to even think of classifying that area as a contender it would have to hold at least ten times as many people as the New York area. So 200 million people.
> 
> Pearl river Delta has the same problem, not really connected which is reflected in the raw numbers 40 million people in 30k sq km. Or a bit more people than Tokyo in 5 times the area.
> .



The Yangtze River Delta is 3x bigger than New York CMSA , and about 11% bigger than Greater Los Angeles, yet crams 105 million in there (2,763 per sq mile). Its about 5x denser than Greater Los Angeles, and 45% denser than the New York CMSA. Its 75% urban and the largest collection of adjacent cities in the world.

The Pearl River Delta's urban areas on either side of the river mouth fit 45 million in an area a fraction the size of LA. About 30 million live in one contiguous city from Guangzhou through to Shenzhen. For the delta region as a whole, its half the size of Greater LA and one third bigger than New York CMSA yet the UN estimates a whopping 120 million live there. That makes it 4x denser than NYC metro and whopping 14x denser than LA Metro. Even at the very lowest, out of date estimates of population (67 million) it would still be twice as dense as NYC metro and 7x LA metro.


----------



## Metro007 (Apr 18, 2011)

The density of course has to be taken in consideration. But for me the most important thing is the percentage of the build-up area (concrete). It doesnt matter if 1 person needs 10 qm or 100 qm.

Airports, factories, highways, buildings, parkings...all this things make a city being "urban".

On the opposite a house every 100m separated by green fields will cover much less than 20% of the ground, even if 10'000 people would live in each one of these houses. The result is, that these areas would be mainly "green, as we can see on some pictures above showing the vicinity of Shangai". Of course the amount of population has to be taken in consideration for other things, but not when talking about the "largest" city (=land used area).

My conclusion: The Pearl River Delta can only compete when talking about a megalopolis. Because it doesnt have enough compact and continous build up area.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

Metro007 said:


> The density of course has to be taken in consideration. But for me the most important thing is the percentage of the build-up area (concrete). It doesnt matter if 1 person needs 10 qm or 100 qm.


I would add urban greenery to it (including private gardens). The problem with these dense areas around the Yangtse is that the land between the houses is used agriculturally, opposed to the more urban usage of a garden in an American suburb.


----------



## ParadiseLost (Feb 1, 2011)

the spliff fairy said:


> The Yangtze River Delta is 3x bigger than New York CMSA , and about 11% bigger than Greater Los Angeles, yet crams 105 million in there (2,763 per sq mile). Its about 5x denser than Greater Los Angeles, and 45% denser than the New York CMSA. Its 75% urban and the largest collection of adjacent cities in the world.
> 
> The Pearl River Delta's urban areas on either side of the river mouth fit 45 million in an area a fraction the size of LA. About 30 million live in one contiguous city from Guangzhou through to Shenzhen. For the delta region as a whole, its half the size of Greater LA and one third bigger than New York CMSA yet the UN estimates a whopping 120 million live there. That makes it 4x denser than NYC metro and whopping 14x denser than LA Metro. Even at the very lowest, out of date estimates of population (67 million) it would still be twice as dense as NYC metro and 7x LA metro.


La CSA is 80k sq km sure. But it's a silly way to measure things as the vast majority of it is uninhabited desert. That's why I took urban areas. LA Urban area is 4.5k sq km (20 times smaller!) with a population of 12 million, New York urban area is about 9k sq km with 18 million people.

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

I mean Miami, Phoenix and others don't even have CSA's so by that measure their area and population would be exactly zero.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

the spliff fairy said:


> For the delta region as a whole, its half the size of Greater LA and one third bigger than New York CMSA yet the UN estimates a whopping 120 million live there. That makes it 4x denser than NYC metro and whopping 14x denser than LA Metro. Even at the very lowest, out of date estimates of population (67 million) it would still be twice as dense as NYC metro and 7x LA metro.


How are 120 million possible when Guangdong as a whole has only around 100 million inhabitants? Or did they calculate the whole coastal area from the PRD all up to Ningbo?


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

^Ive no idea, must be? - UN estimate


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

Metro007 said:


> On the opposite a house every 100m separated by green fields will cover much less than 20% of the ground, even if 10'000 people would live in each one of these houses. The result is, that these areas would be mainly "green, as we can see on some pictures above showing the vicinity of Shangai". Of course the amount of population has to be taken in consideration for other things, but not when talking about the "largest" city (=land used area).
> 
> My conclusion: The Pearl River Delta can only compete when talking about a megalopolis. Because it doesnt have enough compact and continous build up area.


This would exactly apply to a huge amount of US style suburbia


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

ParadiseLost said:


> La CSA is 80k sq km sure. But it's a silly way to measure things as the vast majority of it is uninhabited desert. That's why I took urban areas. LA Urban area is 4.5k sq km (20 times smaller!) with a population of 12 million, New York urban area is about 9k sq km with 18 million people.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_Combined_Statistical_Areas
> 
> I mean Miami, Phoenix and others don't even have CSA's so by that measure their area and population would be exactly zero.


Yep, on the same basis Shanghai municipality is 5,650 sq km and a population of 23 million (density 4,074 per sq km). 

The entire Yangtze River Delta (99,600 sq km) is still denser than urban LA (12.8 million in 12,519 sq km - youve mixed up miles with km there) despite being 8x bigger, and even your definitions of urban NYC (18.3 million in 17,404 sq km - you halved the area here also) is still beaten, at nearly 6x the area.


Bear in mind the figures for the area of the Yangtze River Delta don't have the luxury of cutting out the uninhabited zones either.

In short...

Density of people per sq km:

urban area Los Angeles: *1025* over 12,519 sq km
urban area New York: *1051* over 17,404 sq km
entire YRD including all uninhabited land: *1054* over _99,600_ sq km

.


----------



## SASH (Apr 15, 2005)

Tokio and LA are the largest (*dense)* build-up areas (Cities) in my opinion.


----------



## Metro007 (Apr 18, 2011)

the spliff fairy said:


> This would exactly apply to a huge amount of US style suburbia


That's absolutely true. But not in LA.


----------



## Metro007 (Apr 18, 2011)

the spliff fairy said:


> Yep, on the same basis Shanghai municipality is 5,650 sq km and a population of 23 million (density 4,074 per sq km).
> 
> The entire Yangtze River Delta (99,600 sq km) is still denser than urban LA (12.8 million in 12,519 sq km - youve mixed up miles with km there) despite being 8x bigger, and even your definitions of urban NYC (18.3 million in 17,404 sq km - you halved the area here also) is still beaten, at nearly 6x the area.
> 
> ...


I think talking about any population-density is still useless when the question has to do with the size (that means the land-used area) of a city. In that case it would be the size of the build-up area. For example I estimate that LA should have a build up area of more than 80-85% of its area (= 80-85% are covered with constructions, Highways, houses, parkings, airports etc.). And in the Pearl River Delta i estimate it at about 40%. So the urbanity in L.A. is much more higher. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the density of any population but only with the built-up area. But i think such datas are not available...?


----------



## ParadiseLost (Feb 1, 2011)

the spliff fairy said:


> Yep, on the same basis Shanghai municipality is 5,650 sq km and a population of 23 million (density 4,074 per sq km).
> 
> The entire Yangtze River Delta (99,600 sq km) is still denser than urban LA (12.8 million in 12,519 sq km - youve mixed up miles with km there) despite being 8x bigger, and even your definitions of urban NYC (18.3 million in 17,404 sq km - you halved the area here also) is still beaten, at nearly 6x the area.
> km


I didn't

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

If an extra 180% surface area only yields an extra 5% of population we can assume that that extra 180% area is not "city" and should not be included. The Shanghai figures you quoted are municipal figures and don't really tell much about the nature of the built op area in it.

But you are right looking at these figures LA doesn't really seem to be a contender:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_areas_by_population

With New York or Tokyo as the winner. I think Shanghai would have to beat these figures to be crowned winner:
1	Tokyo	37,126,000	8,547(sq km)	4,300 (pop density)

And that doesn't seem possible because even at 3,000 sq km smaller than the Tokyo urban area it's pop density is already lower.
Otherwise maybe there's a region you can draw that is larger than 11,642 sq km yet has an urban area significantly higher than New York's 1,800? If you can we could investigate that region further to see if it is built up.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

aha^ Shanghai-Suzhou are contiguous. Shanghai has 23 million, but the question is how big is Suzhou? 4 million in the city proper, 10 million in the administrative boundaries that includes it satellite cities and suburbs.

The stats you got off wikipedia are wrong btw for Tokyo. The area given is for Tokyo, Yokohama and Kawasaki wards (together known as the Keihin), not the larger Kanto Plain area where they got their population total from. Not your fault of course, but that wiki page needs re-editing.

Greater Tokyo (pop 35 million) covers an area of 13,500 sq km, (not 37 million in 8500 sq km).

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


So far:

New York (all suburbs) 20.5 million over 11,642 sq km = *1,758 per sq km*

New York (shorn of its lowest density suburbs) 18.35 million over 8936 sq km = *2,053 per sq km*

Tokyo (all suburbs) 35 million over 13500 sq km = *2,592 per sq km*

Shanghai (all suburbs) 23 million over 5650 sq km = *4,074 per sq km*

Shanghai-Suzhou (city poper only) = 27 million over 7299 sq km = *3,670 per sq km*

*Shanghai-Suzhou municipalities = 33.5 million over 14,139 sq km = 2,370 per sq km*


In other words this last entity is more than a third denser than metro NYC 'urban' area but also covers 22% larger an area.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

as posted earlier, the dividing line between Shanghai (right) and Suzhou (left) btw:


----------



## Metro007 (Apr 18, 2011)

The problem is that some people talk about the population and the density....and NOT about the part of the land who is covered by human infrastructure. I still afirm that Tokyo, LA and NY have the most part of their area being covered by urban infrastructure.

The bigger Shangai area and the Pearl River delta both have huge parts of their area being forests or fields. I even affirm that Sao Paulo and Buenos Aires have a bigger continous urban area than the both chinese cities, since they are very compact. Like LA....

It would be very interesting to compare exactly Tokyo and LA: if you look at some urban areas being far from the centre of Tokyo, the density of urban infrastructure (and once again i am not talking about the population) decreases a lot. And LA is almost completely 'urban' on a distance over 120 Km and then suddenly stops. Tokyo is perhaps completely urban over 80 Km but then becomes just 'half-urban'.

Isnt it possible to have exact datas from the satellites by calculating the index of light-reflections (wave) on the ground of some big cities? So it would be possible to calculate the only-urban part of them? The official datas of urban areas cant be compared imo since every country has its own definitions.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

I think therein youre arguing the intensity of suburbanisation - building heights versus building footprints, population density versus building density, road surface versus industrial site, huge gardens and forests versus divided up farm plots, job types versus commuting. All this in differing combinations.


Also, satellite light reflection is not indicative of built up areas, merely how dense or well lighted the roads are, even if theyre passing through countryside. Case in point, compare the intensity of the US, even parts of the desert outshining the worlds densest urban areas (East China and northern India, relatively small areas crammed with near 600 million urbanites each):


----------



## Metro007 (Apr 18, 2011)

the spliff fairy said:


> Also, satellite light reflection is not indicative of built up areas


Of course. But I was not talking about city-lights. Is it possible to calculate how much a wave is reflected depending on the kind of ground. So it is possible to calculate where there is vegetation for example. And so it would perhaps be possible to calculate the part of urbanity too (streets and build up areas will reflect the wave in another frequency that can be detected by satellites).

Sorry for my poor english. I perhaps didn't expressed myself good enough ;-)


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

^hmm, that would be great. Density aside for a sec, -a measure of manmade surface... not gardens, not farm plots, not forests or fields. Not just tarmac, but with increasingly more intense colours for buildings, and levels of those buildings (eg 2,3,4 storey etc.)


----------



## Metro007 (Apr 18, 2011)

Yeah! So it would be possible to calculate on a very accurate way the percentage of build up areas and then calculate its total area...


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

anyhoo, here goes:

Shanghai-Suzhou, its about 80 miles across (bear in mind, only the areas with street lighting in China will show. The farmer's apartments that blanket the region will not).










(^of course you could connect up all the cities in this region, but these two are directly contiguous)

THESE PICS ARE NOT TO THE SAME SCALE

New York-Long Island-New Jersey, about 70 miles across edge to edge - New Bruswick out to way up Long Island (very dim).










(^of course you could connect up all the cities in this region, but these three are directly contiguous)

THESE PICS ARE NOT TO THE SAME SCALE

Tokyo-Yokohama-Kawasaki (urban purple, farmland pink), its about 60 miles from the northernmost strand (out of shot) to the peninsular in the south.
However its also 50 miles across in the wide area.










(^of course you could connect up all the cities in this region, but these three are directly contiguous)


----------



## megacity30 (Oct 8, 2011)

Metro007 said:


> I think talking about any population-density is still useless when the question has to do with the size (that means the land-used area) of a city. In that case it would be the size of the build-up area. For example I estimate that LA should have a build up area of more than 80-85% of its area (= 80-85% are covered with constructions, Highways, houses, parkings, airports etc.). And in the Pearl River Delta i estimate it at about 40%. So the urbanity in L.A. is much more higher. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the density of any population but only with the built-up area. But i think such datas are not available...?


Data may not be available but I shall post zoomed-in Google satellite map images of the suburban parts of NYC, Tokyo, LA, the YRD and the PRD.
Let the SSC members decide on the built-up density.


----------



## Metro007 (Apr 18, 2011)

Shangai (only continuous build up urban area):









Tokyo (only continous build up urban area):









Los Angeles continous (build up) urban area:









(and goind from the west to the end of San Gabriel Valley on the right (scale ist to small) will even show 130 Km of continuous urban area! No city in the world can beat this


----------



## Metro007 (Apr 18, 2011)

That's why L.A. probably is the largest continous urban area in the world. But of course not the largest multi-core megalopolis.


----------



## Metro007 (Apr 18, 2011)

Excuse me about the big size of the pictures (but if we talk about big cities the pictures also have to be big )

And here the west-east length of the continuos urban area of L.A.

We can't read it well but it shows 130 Km (!!!)


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

can you do the same lines - but instead of stopping halfway...

What is it from Suzhou's lakefront to Shanghai's airport in the east? (about 100km?)

Similarly that strand of Tokyo down south to the peninsular (not just stopping at the bay - youve missed out loads)


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

ok doing it now.

This is over 140 km across


----------



## Metro007 (Apr 18, 2011)

the spliff fairy said:


> What is it from Suzhou's lakefront to Shanghai's airport in the east? (about 100km?)


I think it will be about 80-90 Km but it isn' completely continous....i tried to measure from what i think was the longest continuos distance but i have to admit that i never was in Tokyo and Shangai. If you install the programm 'google earth' you will be able to do it as well. Perhaps you can be a little more precise than me?

I was just trying to show approximatively the differences beetween these 3 urban areas. For sure we can make it more precise but i doubt that we can fin a continuos distance over 130 Km and if we do, it wont be as dense as L.A where always over 80% of the ground is build up on my maps.


----------



## Metro007 (Apr 18, 2011)

the spliff fairy said:


> ok doing it now.
> 
> This is over 140 km across


Ok but it isn't continuos ;-) Here we have a multiple core megalopolis and not a unique one.


----------



## megacity30 (Oct 8, 2011)

little universe said:


> Pls look up at google earth at the same time! There are Kunshan(1.68 million) and Taicang(0.72 million), the two county level cities under Suzhou's administration in between Suzhou fecture-level city and Shanghai !!! That would add 2.4 million more people to your miscalculated "conclusion" about Shanghai and Suzhou Metropolitan Area!


little universe, this thread is about the largest urban area, and not the most populous. 

When we add the county-level urban areas of Kunshan (area 928 sq. km.) and Taicang (area 649 sq. km.), the area is only increased by 1577 sq. km. referring to wiki sources.

New York City's urban area is still 8000 sq. km larger!


----------



## little universe (Jan 3, 2008)

^^

That's not the point. The point is you were wrong about the figures in your conclusion! 

If you trying to define the Largest city by Area, millions of environmentalists would queue up protesting around your house!!! :bash:


----------



## null (Dec 11, 2002)

I shall never consider 'suburban' areas to be urban or true parts of a city. So no NYC for me.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

null said:


> I shall never consider 'suburban' areas to be urban or true parts of a city. So no NYC for me.


Well they are. Even if it doesn't look like that, but most New York suburbs are contiguous and the usage of the greenery as a garden is clearly urban. And the people living there don't live a rural lifestyle.

Of course excluding suburbs puts most Chinese cities higher in the list, as they are defined ridiculosly large by the government.


----------



## null (Dec 11, 2002)

> as they are defined ridiculosly large_ by the government_.


Huh? I think most urban areas of American cities are defined ridiculosly large by wiki.



> Well they are. Even if it doesn't look like that, but most New York suburbs are contiguous and the usage of the greenery as a garden is clearly urban. And the people living there don't live a rural lifestyle.


Sure, but the problem is, New York suburbs don't look like have a size of 10,000+ sqkm on Google Earth.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

null said:


> Huh? I think most urban areas of American cities are defined ridiculosly large by wiki.


No, I meant the cities in China. Look at Chongqing, this has nothing to do anymore with a city.


----------



## Metro007 (Apr 18, 2011)

null said:


> Mexico City does not have a sprawling nature but it's still one of the Largest built-up areas on the Globe, very impressive by size.


Yes...it's huge and perhaps one of the 10 largest urban areas (with Sao Paulo etc.).


----------



## null (Dec 11, 2002)

Chrissib said:


> No, I meant the cities in China. Look at Chongqing, this has nothing to do anymore with a city.


CQ is a Municipality, just like the New York State, not a city.


----------



## Metro007 (Apr 18, 2011)

Chrissib said:


> Well they are. Even if it doesn't look like that, but most New York suburbs are contiguous and the usage of the greenery as a garden is clearly urban. And the people living there don't live a rural lifestyle.
> 
> Of course excluding suburbs puts most Chinese cities higher in the list, as they are defined ridiculosly large by the government.


Of course when talking about an 'urban way of life' you may be right...but i personnaly would only count areas with more than 50% of the ground being built-up. Because, if we don't, the discussion will start again about which population density we add to urban areas and which not. Since we are alking about size and continuous urban areas, the definition of >50% build up area isn't that bad.

So my personnaly view in this thread is to talk only about the way the ground is build up, on a continuous way. And once again for a few other people here: the population hasn't any importance in this discussion.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

Metro007 said:


> Of course when talking about an 'urban way of life' you may be right...but i personnaly would only count areas with more than 50% of the ground being built-up. Because, if we don't, the discussion will start again about which population density we add to urban areas and which not. Since we are alking about size and continuous urban areas, the definition of >50% build up area isn't that bad.
> 
> So my personnaly view in this thread is to talk only about the way the ground is build up, on a continuous way. And once again for a few other people here: the population hasn't any importance in this discussion.


How do you view gardens then? In a way, they are also built up.


----------



## Metro007 (Apr 18, 2011)

Chrissib said:


> How do you view gardens then? In a way, they are also built up.


If the part of the gardens are >50% then i would not count them. Otherweise the whole discussion will begin again about which density we have to count it. And the 50%-limit seems logical for most of people.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

talking in circles here


----------



## PanaManiac (Mar 26, 2005)

*World's 10 largest cities by (urban) land area*

*I Google-searched this topic and found this (only) source on the first page of results. (There may other sources, but I have a life...) The most remarkable revelation is that Tokyo is the only non-USA city to crack the top 10. Make of that what you will...*

*New York City*
*Tokyo*
*Chicago*
*Atlanta*
*Philadelphia*
*Boston*
*Los Angeles*
*Dallas*
*Houston*
*Detroit*

*Source*


----------



## Metro007 (Apr 18, 2011)

My God...:bash:

As the spliff fairy already wrote: we are talking in circles...

PanaManiac: did you read the whole thread? I think it would be a good beginning...


----------



## PanaManiac (Mar 26, 2005)

Copperknickers said:


> I was wondering, *what is the largest city in the world? I mean by the actual area of the urban area*, which is impossible to find online - that is, the largest cityscape in the world. Tokyo is the largest by population but it's so dense, I would guess an American city where houses are spread out.


^^


Metro007 said:


> *PanaManiac: did you read the whole thread?* I think it would be a good beginning...


*Not the whole thread, but the thread-starter's post above.*


----------



## Metro007 (Apr 18, 2011)

PanaManiac said:


> ^^
> *Not the whole thread, but the thread-starter's post above.*


OK. What was discussed about is that we can't really use official numbers to compare the urban areas. That's why we tried to build our own ones and discuss about which would be the largest city using them.

Everybody doesn't agree with some cities, so that we couldn't find an answer, who would fits to everybody ;-)

But for sure Tokyo and NY belongs to the largest urban areas...(and for me - using my own definition - it would be LA). 

Putting Boston above LA in your ranking is more than a joke. I was last summer in Boston. Even Paris or London looks much more larger. And LA is still 2-3 larger than Paris and London...(look at google-maps). So we just can't take this list seriously...


----------



## PanaManiac (Mar 26, 2005)

*Clarification/Reminder:*



PanaManiac said:


> *Boston*
> *Los Angeles*
> *Dallas*
> *Houston*
> ...


^^


Metro007 said:


> Putting Boston above LA in *your* ranking is more than a joke. I was last summer in Boston. Even Paris or London looks much more larger. And LA is still 2-3 larger than Paris and London...(look at google-maps). So we just can't take this list seriously...


*It's not my ranking, it's the source above. *


----------



## null (Dec 11, 2002)

It's a BS source.


----------



## Metro007 (Apr 18, 2011)

PanaManiac said:


> ^^
> It's not my ranking, it's the source above.


I know! But completely a joke. Thats what i meant.


----------



## ..Polkator.. (Apr 19, 2009)

null said:


> Mexico City does not have a sprawling nature but it's still one of the Largest built-up areas on the Globe, very impressive by size.


Mexico city isn't that big, is less than 2000km2, near 1700km2. Greater Toronto (Hamilton - Oshawa) is also near that numbers.


----------



## Isek (Feb 13, 2005)

null said:


> It's a BS source.


Oh, yes!

Marseille larger than Istanbul :lol:
Bordeaux larger than Berlin :lol: :lol: 
Toulon larger than Tehran :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## italiano_pellicano (Feb 22, 2010)

tokyo , japan


----------



## Metro007 (Apr 18, 2011)

italiano_pellicano said:


> tokyo , japan


And that's someone living in L.A. who says this hno:


----------



## Blackpool88 (Nov 15, 2007)

Somebody should PM Spotilia and ask him to post the three largest cities he mapped, he seemed to do a pretty good job on them and population had nothing to do with them.


----------



## idoke (May 7, 2011)

No doubt and without any question - the biggest city is Beijing.

Tokyo, NY or Shanghai are smaller.

For example Shanghai VS Beijing - both have approx 20 million people, but the buildings in Beijing are not as high as in Shanghai and the roads in Beijing are much much wider.

There are all the historical sites in Beijing that take huge space - Forbidden City, Yuan Ming Yuan, Summer Place, Tian An Men square, Temple of Heaven etc. Then there is the embassy area - which is huge.
The Olympic village.

There are more than 70 universities in Beijing - some of them have huge campuses - Like Beijing Uni, Qinghua etc.

Beijing is about twice bigger than Shanghai and its urban size is 16,801 km2


----------



## idoke (May 7, 2011)

And - I forgot to mention that 30% of the homes in Beijing are empty!
There are 13.2 million homes in Beijing - what makes it actually like a 30 (edit - 40) million people city and not 20 million. LOL!

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1515611&page=11

Beijing is HUGE.
I have been to Shangehai and Tokyo - none is even close to the size of Beijing.


----------



## megacity30 (Oct 8, 2011)

At the same 20 km scale, am posting Google satellite maps of the urban areas of Shanghai, Tokyo, Beijing, New York City and Los Angeles.

The YRD (Yangtze River Delta) centred on Shanghai:-


----------



## megacity30 (Oct 8, 2011)

At the same 20 km scale,

Greater Tokyo - northern part











Greater Tokyo - southern part till Nagoya


----------



## megacity30 (Oct 8, 2011)

20 km scale,

Beijing:


----------



## megacity30 (Oct 8, 2011)

On a 20 km scale, the Los Angeles CMSA:











LA CMSA - southern part to San Diego and the Mexican border areas


----------



## idoke (May 7, 2011)

IMO, it is hard to get to any conclusion using Google maps. 
For example, from the Tokyo map it looks like Narita is part of Tokyo - but it really not one urban-connected-space.

But in Beijing Changping, Tongzhou, Fangshan & Daxing (and maybe even Shunyi) are part of Beijing.


----------



## idoke (May 7, 2011)

Also, Kunshan & Suzhou are two separated cities and are not part of Shanghai.

Yokohama is not Tokyo.

And Santa Ana is not LA.

So the question is are we talking about the biggest urban area or the biggest city.
If the question is about urban area then maybe LA or Tokyo are the biggest (and even then I am not so sure), but if the question is about one single city, then Beijing is the biggest - no other city is even close.


----------



## megacity30 (Oct 8, 2011)

20 km scale, New York City's northern sprawl:











New York City and its southern sprawl:


----------



## megacity30 (Oct 8, 2011)

idoke said:


> IMO, it is hard to get to any conclusion using Google maps.
> For example, from the Tokyo map it looks like Narita is part of Tokyo - but it really not one urban-connected-space.
> 
> But in Beijing Changping, Tongzhou, Fangshan & Daxing (and maybe even Shunyi) are part of Beijing.


It's true Google maps have their limitation, especially at a 20 km scale; however, they are the most accurate standardized tool we have presently (at least until Spotila provides us the maps we've been yearning for).

These five urbanized areas are the world's largest, area-wise, and a 20 km scale is required for a visual comparison.

Narita is completely urban and connected with Tokyo; let's remember we're looking at both urban area and metropolitan area. For example, Narita, Chiba, Kanagawa, Tochigi and Ibaraki are included in Tokyo's contiguous urban area, whereas Yamanashi and Shizuoka are not contiguous but included in its metropolitan area. Cities have a very different meaning in China from the rest of the world.

Also, if you look carefully, Changping, Fangshan, Daxing etc are included in Beijing's urban area.


----------



## idoke (May 7, 2011)

Well, I guess everyone has its own definitions.
I definitely won't see Narita as part of Tokyo. I took the ride from Narita airport to Tokyo a few times, and in my books Narita-Tokyo is not one urban area.

The same as I won't consider Huairou to be part of Beijing - there are just too many fields between the two (and so are between Narita and Tokyo).


----------



## megacity30 (Oct 8, 2011)

Interestingly, the greater metropolitan area of Sao Paulo is also among the largest in the world, but its contiguous urban area is smaller; how do you rate its size?

Sao Paulo, its western, eastern and northern arms at a 20 km scale:











Sao Paulo's southern metropolitan extension:


----------



## italiano_pellicano (Feb 22, 2010)

Tokyo is huge , of course in America the largest city is L.A 





Metro007 said:


> And that's someone living in L.A. who says this hno:


----------



## kingsc (Apr 7, 2008)

LA the largest city in America lol. In what way.


----------



## ..Polkator.. (Apr 19, 2009)

idoke said:


> No doubt and without any question - the biggest city is Beijing.
> 
> *Tokyo, NY* or Shanghai *are smaller.*
> 
> Beijing is about twice bigger than Shanghai and *its urban size is 16,801 km2*


You must be kidding.

Beijing on this map show an area of 2820 km2:









Anyway, the area must be way smaller, because I take into consideration parts like this, full of empty spaces:









New York occupies and area bigger than 11,000 km2; Even Miami (almost 3000km2.) is bigger than Beijing


----------



## idoke (May 7, 2011)

^^

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

there aren't many agriculture areas in the part you highlighted. There are - but not much.

Anyway, this argue will never end. All I can say is that I have been in Tokyo and Shanghai and both are much smaller than Beijing IMHO.

I will visit LA next year. Until then I can only compare them by looking at the map, and if you count only LA without the surrounding cities, then Beijing is by far larger.


----------



## Metro007 (Apr 18, 2011)

And here L.A. again (extremely precise!). In fact L.A: is very easy to do since the borders are very clear.










-> 5'145 km2 (versus 4'122 km2 for Tokyo but wit a lot of fields and parcs included!).

I still dont understand why some people say that the continuous urban area of Tokyo would be clearly larger hno:

-> L.A. is much more massive. No other city in the world with exception of NY is larger if we only look at the continuous area...


----------



## Metro007 (Apr 18, 2011)

NY seems about the size of L.A., even it isn't extremely precise because of the borders who aren't clear at all and the same situation as in Tokyo...and i have to admit that it's a first approximation, who has to be refined...

But i get *5'371 km2 *(!) for this area:


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

okee, gawd this took a while. Contiguous only.

Way I see it LA contiguous is bigger than Tokyo contiguous. Although there is an inordinate amount of satellite towns around Tokyo, they shouldnt be included if theyre not physically connected:


Tokyo









LA 









... but Shanghai is suspect. Changzhou is in dark red - there is a link but imo it's not strong enough, and too bitty (I don't mark out the bitty areas except for here), so shouldn't be included. This is city only - it doesn't include the farmer's apartments that blanket the region.


----------



## ..Polkator.. (Apr 19, 2009)

the spliff fairy said:


> okee, gawd this took a while. Contiguous only.


That's great :cheers:

Btw, what program did you used?


----------



## Metro007 (Apr 18, 2011)

Yes nice job spliff fairy! I think Shangai has Potential to overpass both LA and Tokyo if it continues to grow as fast...


----------



## city_thing (May 25, 2006)

Thanks for the hard work Spliff Fairy & Metro007!


----------



## oliver999 (Aug 4, 2006)

the biggest city center?


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

I reckon contiguous Shanghai has already overtaken Tokyo, and maybe LA, and depending on Changzhou. Also of course the fact it grows by a million a year.

Program I used was Google Earth and a whole lot of zoom


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

oliver999 said:


> the biggest city center?


How do you define city center?


----------



## Metro007 (Apr 18, 2011)

city_thing said:


> Thanks for the hard work Spliff Fairy & Metro007!


You're welcome ;-)


----------



## VECTROTALENZIS (Jul 10, 2010)

Chrissib said:


> How do you define city center?


Inner-city, the non-suburban city.
Where it feels urban and not suburban.


----------



## VECTROTALENZIS (Jul 10, 2010)

oliver999 said:


> Shanghai, the biggest city center?


Shanghai has one of the largest inner-cities in the world but I know that Paris, Tokyo, and New York has larger inner-cities/city centers.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

VECTROTALENZIS said:


> Shanghai has one of the largest inner-cities in the world but I know that Paris, Tokyo, and New York has larger inner-cities/city centers.


I wouldn't call highrises with greenery around (like in most parts of oliver999's picture) inner-city. 


Inner city is the area of historical buildings within a former city wall dispersed with lots of shops and offices. In newer cities it's also an area with lots of offices and shops, mostly fully built up.

For Shanghai this would be the area between the river and the Zhongshan north/west road and Lujiazui. I estimate that this area is around 50km² big. Beijings inner city is around 63km², so already a bit larger than Shanghai's. Shanghai's inner city is large, but it is hardly the largest in the world.


----------



## VECTROTALENZIS (Jul 10, 2010)

Chrissib said:


> I wouldn't call highrises with greenery around (like in most parts of oliver999's picture) inner-city.
> 
> Inner city is the area of historical buildings within a former city wall dispersed with lots of shops and offices. In newer cities it's also an area with lots of offices and shops, mostly fully built up.
> 
> For Shanghai this would be the area between the river and the Zhongshan north/west road and Lujiazui. I estimate that this area is around 50km² big. Beijings inner city is around 63km², so already a bit larger than Shanghai's. Shanghai's inner city is large, but it is hardly the largest in the world.


Have you been to Shanghai or Beijing? Beijing is a city which doesn't have a real concentrated inner-city as everything is spread out all over the city. But overall in Beijing inside the third ring-road is considered the inner-city.

What is the inner-city in a city differs from countries and cities. Chinese cities are different from European cities as most cities don't have a large old city-center because most cities started to grow 20 years ago.

Not everything in that Shanghai picture is the inner-city, areas of outer-city is also included in that picture. Actually on the Puxi side of Shanghai, most areas don't have highrises with greenery around, but all the streets have tree's lining them so it looks very green. Atleast everything inside the inner-city ring road on the Puxi side is the inner-city. I have measured and Shanghai's inner-city is about 100-110 km². I didn't say that it is the largest, but *one of the *largest. As I said, Paris, Tokyo, and New York all have larger inner-cities. Paris' is about 120-130 km², Tokyo's about 120-130 km², New York's about 110-120 km².


----------



## Metro007 (Apr 18, 2011)

What about Berlin? I think it has a huge city-center...


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

VECTROTALENZIS said:


> What is the inner-city in a city differs from countries and cities. Chinese cities are different from European cities as most cities don't have a large old city-center because most cities started to grow 20 years ago.


20 years ago? China has had some of the world's biggest cities for most of history....


----------



## ukiyo (Aug 5, 2008)

This person did their own map. Purple = urban areas









http://geology.com/world-cities/tokyo-japan.shtml

What looks continuous on google maps is not what functions as a "city". The Tokyo region has the most rail usage in the entire world at *40 million daily passengers* (this doesn't include drivers or buses)...a large amount of them being commuters from suburbs and "exurbs".

The Japanese urban model is very different than the US (and China), cities are centered around the train stations and are quite urban. Whether it is continuous or not is irrelevant due to the nature of the train system. You literally can have more of an "urban" experience way up in Maebashi which on google earth is technically surrounded by fields..than you can in say San bernardino. Tokyo's satellite cities should be included...remember that there is no other rail system this large and used in the world...and it is a huge factor. Japan has the highest rail usage in this world...we can't simply ignore this. It's not like for american cities where the satellite cities are spread out with no rail whatsoever and the drive takes forever.

With that being said American cities are highly spread out so I wouldn't question much that NYC or LA technically have the largest "urban area" in the world.


----------



## Metro007 (Apr 18, 2011)

@ukiyo:

Funny guy ! 

And LA has more urban experience since it has more highways? Come on...it isn't very serious because we were not talking about what you call an urban experience but about the build up area. Do you understand what this means?

Otherwise Europe as a whole would be urban since it has a well developped rail-network


----------



## ukiyo (Aug 5, 2008)

And what I am saying is what google maps shows as the "built up area" is completely irrelevant to the question of the largest city. That goes not only for Tokyo but all the cities. Europe having a developed rail network is irrelevant to the point as well, the point is about commuters and the function of the infrastructure...if a significant proportion of Paris' satellite cities commute into Paris and their infrastructure serves the purpose of integration with Paris..than yes that is relevant. Regardless the map I posted shows the density levels more of the urban areas..despite there being brief spaces of discontinuity a lot of those cities in the north are just as dense as say San Bernardino, despite not looking like it on google earth (compare the statistics).

P.S. Tokyo has the largest loop highway in the world just fyi.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

ukiyo said:


> P.S. Tokyo has the largest loop highway in the world just fyi.


Isn't it still under construction? 

Has it already passed Berlin's 196 km, now the largest completed ring motorway of the world?


----------

