# What are the top 5 largest urban areas in terms of urban population??



## PhillyPhilly90 (Aug 12, 2005)

If we had to use a international measurement of urban population that applies to all cities in the world...what would you think would be in the top 5??

I think it would be
1. Tokyo
2. Mexico City
3. New York
4. Seoul
5. Sao Paulo

URBAN population, not METRO!!!
What are your top 5 and why. If you have facts to support your top 5 then show your source.


----------



## sworddamage (Oct 18, 2005)

Tokyo
Mexico City
New York
Sao Paulo
Bombay

Seoul is big but not that big I think


----------



## Bent (Sep 25, 2005)

1- New York
2- Tokio
3- São Paulo
4- Mexico City
5- Seoul


----------



## Jaye101 (Feb 16, 2005)

^^ NY first? What world are yuo living on... TOKYO is always first.


----------



## CHI (Apr 17, 2004)

URBAN POPULATION:

1. Tokyo
2. Mexico City
3. Sao Paulo
4. New York City
5. Seoul

I usually view the urban population of Chicago as around 5 million people.


----------



## Jaye101 (Feb 16, 2005)

^^Why not nine?


----------



## Godot (Sep 25, 2005)

I'm curious about that one, too. I have heard people from Chicago tell me it
was around 5 million, and when I was there I could swear it was more like a
city of 9 or 10 million. It is HUGE!


----------



## Shodan (Oct 15, 2005)

Istanbul is pretty big too.


----------



## brooklynprospect (Apr 27, 2005)

If you're talking about urban rather than suburban population, then NYC wouldn't be in the top 5.

The NY metro has 21 million people, but at best 10 million live urban environments, with the rest in the suburbs. 

Asian metros like Tokyo, Seoul, Kansai (Okaka, Kyoto and Kobe), Shanghai hardly have any real low density, car-dependent suburbs in the American sense. If Tokyo has a metro of 35 million people, I strongly suspect not less than 34 million of those people live in urban (and not suburban) areas. Same thing with Seoul, Osaka, etc.


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

Tokyo
Mexico
Sao Paolo
Mumbai
Kolkata or Seoul


----------



## Küsel (Sep 16, 2004)

1 Tokyo - 33mio
2 Mexico city - 24mio
3 New York - 22mio
4 Seoul 20mio
5 Sao Paulo 19mio - tight with Mumbai with the same pop and overtaking SP now

You can't count Pearl River Delta as an urban area - it's more kind of an urban "corridor" as Tokyo-Osaka or Boswash even though it's a triangle. Also Chongquing has a bit pop but only 15% are in the urban core.


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

What is meant by the urban, and not the metro area? So discounting suburban areas?


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

samsonyuen said:


> What is meant by the urban, and not the metro area? So discounting suburban areas?



Urban area means continuous build up

Metro area means the region that is directly dependant to the city (most of the people living there work in the city etc)


----------



## Travis007 (Jul 19, 2004)

World's Largest Urban Area Populations (City Proper, not including metro). Estimates for 2005.

http://www.mongabay.com/cities_pop_01.htm

1 12,778,721 Bombay Mumbai India 
2 12,207,254 Karachi Pakistan 
3 11,055,365 Delhi India 
4 10,840,516 Shanghai China 
5 10,375,688 Moscow Moskva Russia 
6 10,147,972 Seoul Soul South Korea 
7 10,136,978 Sao Paulo São Paulo Brazil 
8 10,121,565 Istanbul Istanbul Turkey 
9 8,866,160 Lima Peru 
10 8,548,639 Ciudad de México Mexico City Mexico 
11 8,407,479 Jakarta Indonesia 
12 8,158,957 New York United States of America 
13 8,124,310 Tokyo Japan 
14 7,741,274 Beijing China 
15 7,620,971 Bogotá Colombia 
16 7,438,376 Al-Qahirah Cairo Egypt 
17 7,404,515 Tehran Iran 
18 7,318,636 Ar-Riyad Saudi Arabia 
19 7,287,555 London England 
20 7,192,209 Bogota Bogotá Colombia 
21 7,181,111 Lagos Nigeria 
22 6,956,562 Baghdad Baghdad Iraq 
23 6,942,751 Bangkok Thailand 
24 6,392,853 Lahore Pakistan 
25 6,080,671 Dacca Dhaka Bangladesh


----------



## ejd03 (Oct 23, 2003)

CHI said:


> URBAN POPULATION:
> 
> 1. Tokyo
> 2. Mexico City
> ...


just for urban, Seoul has more population than Tokyo.. but not for metro area


----------



## ejd03 (Oct 23, 2003)

brooklynprospect said:


> If you're talking about urban rather than suburban population, then NYC wouldn't be in the top 5.
> 
> The NY metro has 21 million people, but at best 10 million live urban environments, with the rest in the suburbs.
> 
> Asian metros like Tokyo, Seoul, Kansai (Okaka, Kyoto and Kobe), Shanghai hardly have any real low density, car-dependent suburbs in the American sense. If Tokyo has a metro of 35 million people, I strongly suspect not less than 34 million of those people live in urban (and not suburban) areas. Same thing with Seoul, Osaka, etc.


you are a genius.. how do you know all this?? have you been to asia many times? or are you specialized in Asian studies?


----------



## FastWhiteTA (Jul 24, 2004)

brooklynprospect said:


> If you're talking about urban rather than suburban population, then NYC wouldn't be in the top 5.
> 
> The NY metro has 21 million people, but at best 10 million live urban environments, with the rest in the suburbs.
> 
> Asian metros like Tokyo, Seoul, Kansai (Okaka, Kyoto and Kobe), Shanghai hardly have any real low density, car-dependent suburbs in the American sense. If Tokyo has a metro of 35 million people, I strongly suspect not less than 34 million of those people live in urban (and not suburban) areas. Same thing with Seoul, Osaka, etc.



Urban is built up area...which means that suburbia counts. Just because some areas are "car dependent" doesn't mean it is not considered a built up area. People on this site continue to amaze me with their "it's not a real city if it's car dependent" crap. Urban areas stop when areas start getting spread out up to a certain distance. i.e. plots of land that are undeveloped, etc. Surburbia pretty much has everything developed, just in a low density setting.

And I Know you'll hate to hear that Suburban areas are built up. You have houses, stores, malls, restaurants, apartments, etc. You're thinking urban environments as in "wow that's an urban area". That's the wrong way to look at it IMO.

So in this sense, those "suburbs" of NY still count.


----------



## Effer (Jun 9, 2005)

Travis007 said:


> World's Largest Urban Area Populations (City Proper, not including metro). Estimates for 2005.
> 
> http://www.mongabay.com/cities_pop_01.htm
> 
> ...


Does India always have to be first! :runaway:


----------



## rokey1140 (Mar 13, 2005)

Travis007 said:


> World's Largest Urban Area Populations (City Proper, not including metro). Estimates for 2005.
> 
> http://www.mongabay.com/cities_pop_01.htm
> 
> ...



hahaha

New York Populations is 19,190,115 in 2000s (not including metro)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York

Beijing Populations is 14,560,000 is 2003s (not including metro)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing

Tokyo Populations is 12,527,115 in 2003s (not including metro)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo

Seoul Populations is 9,747,972 in 2005s (not including metro)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seoul


----------



## ejd03 (Oct 23, 2003)

rokey1140 said:


> hahaha
> 
> Beijing Populations is 14,560,000 is 2003s (not including metro)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing
> ...


WTF?


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

I doubt that the ranking of this will ever yield good result!
Every city urban are differ in size and that obviously can change the population outcome in extreme! Just take a good look at Chicago. Eventho it has population around 3 million, but the urban size of it compare to that of Tokyo, NYC, Mexico, Sao Paulo for that matters are way undersize, if you want to stick to closer urban size, then Chicagoland or metro should be consider for Chicago population and it should be around 11-15 million depend on the scale of simillar urban size for all these cities!

But for the sake of the thread, Tokyo is the easily most populated in its urban area,no doubt about that!


----------



## rokey1140 (Mar 13, 2005)

Kuesel said:


> 1 Tokyo - 33mio
> 2 Mexico city - 24mio
> 3 New York - 22mio
> 4 Seoul 20mio
> ...



You are correct.. Clear person

Mexico City is the second most populated metropolitan area in the world, (behind Tokyo) but its population doubles every 30 years.

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


----------



## rokey1140 (Mar 13, 2005)

correct date

New York Populations is 19,190,115 in 2000s (not including metro)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York

Beijing Populations is 14,560,000 is 2003s (not including metro)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing

Tokyo Populations is 12,527,115 in 2003s (not including metro)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo

Seoul Populations is 9,747,972 in 2005s (not including metro)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seoul


----------



## Travis007 (Jul 19, 2004)

^^ No, 19 million _is_ the metro population of NYC, 8 million is about the city proper population.

Here's how Wikipedia ranks the largest *Metro* populations in the world (2005 estimates) :

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

1 Tokyo (Greater Tokyo Area) Japan Official metropolitan area (Keihinyo MMA)35,237,000 

2 Mexico City (Greater Mexico City) Mexico Official metropolitan area (ZMCM) 19,013,000 

3 New York City, New York-Newark, New Jersey (New York Metropolitan Area) United States Urbanized area (FIPS 63217) 18,498,000 

4 Mumbai (Bombay), Maharashtra India Administrative area (MMRDA) 
18,336,000 

5 São Paulo (Greater São Paulo Area) Brazil Official metropolitan area 
18,333,000 


6 Delhi, National Capital Territory of Delhi India Administrative area (NCT) 
15,334,000 


7 Kolkata (Calcutta) India Administrative area (KMD) 14,299,000 

8 Jakarta (Jabodetabek Metropolitan Area) Indonesia Urbanized area 
13,194,000 

9 Shanghai China (PRC) Municipality (province) 12,665,000 


10 Dhaka Bangladesh Official metropolitan area (Dhaka Megacity) 12,650,000


----------



## FastWhiteTA (Jul 24, 2004)

Travis007 said:


> ^^ No, 19 million _is_ the metro population of NYC, 8 million is about the city proper population.
> 
> Here's how Wikipedia ranks the largest *Metro* populations in the world (2005 estimates) :
> 
> ...


But that's ranking NYC's urban area, and not it's metro, as the others are being ranked. New york's metro is 22 million.


----------



## ejd03 (Oct 23, 2003)

Travis007 said:


> ^^ No, 19 million _is_ the metro population of NYC, 8 million is about the city proper population.
> 
> Here's how Wikipedia ranks the largest *Metro* populations in the world (2005 estimates) :
> 
> ...


no man you are completely wrong.. do some more research on it
N.Y's metro is about 24 million and it is no 3


----------



## polako (Apr 7, 2005)

2005 World's Largest "Urbanized" Areas
1.Tokyo-26,849,000
2.Sao Paulo-19,591,000
3.Mexico city-18,934,000
4.NYC-18,498,000
5.Mumbai-18,337,000

Source: UN Population Division


----------



## Küsel (Sep 16, 2004)

I don't get it anymore - "urban areas" not including suburbs and things like that... is it about biggest CBDs? The morphology of American, European and Asian cities is totally different. You can't compare an extreme centralized city with a small CBD but an endless sea of suburbs as Houston or LA with cities such as for example Tokyo or Sao Paulo that contain several centers or subcenters. In Europe it also would be difficult to define "urban areas" for our cities are a conglomeration of old grown-together municipalities. So can you find more "rural" areas in the city proper of Berlin, Stockholm, Zurich than in some of their "suburbs".

Urban doesn't mean density and hight, a city is an organism of centers, subcenters, living neighbourhoods and periferic areas. But the functional mixture of this is very diverse by comparisment of cities from different continents as I said above. 

There is no statistics that measures "urbanity" per se. We can talk about agglomerations, city propers, CBDs or metro areas but how do you want to limitate urbanity?


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

This is impossible to answer and therefore I haven't seen a list in this whole thread that makes any sense whatsoever...


----------



## DarkLite (Dec 31, 2004)

is there any evidence to back that tokyo is really that immense!!?? if the 35 million figure would be true, than that would mean 0.5% of the world lives in tokyo!


----------



## Mr_ed2 (Jul 18, 2003)

^That would make the world's population 7 billion. Is that true? I had no idea it was that much.

If the world's population is less, then tokyo's percentage share will be even higher.


----------



## DarkLite (Dec 31, 2004)

well if it were to be 30 million i mean, but still half a percent is still big


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

virtual said:


> Urban area means continuous build up
> 
> Metro area means the region that is directly dependant to the city (most of the people living there work in the city etc)


So the Boston-Washington corridor could be one urban area then?


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

By no means.


----------



## CHI (Apr 17, 2004)

JayeTheOnly said:


> ^^Why not nine?


Obviously the entire city is urban, as well as surrounding areas like Cicero and Oak Park. Urban areas of Chicago extend far south along the lake well into Indiana. I would still limit the population to 5 million because there are alot of suburbs that are usually included in the 'metro' area. The areas surrounding O'Hare are largely suburban.


----------



## Küsel (Sep 16, 2004)

Mr_ed2 said:


> ^That would make the world's population 7 billion. Is that true? I had no idea it was that much.
> 
> If the world's population is less, then tokyo's percentage share will be even higher.


If you calculate that:
- the world pop is about 6'477mio at the moment
- China's pop is 1'306mio (20,4%), 
- while India's is 1'080mio (16,9% +15mio/year!!) 
- and in both countries only 30% live in urbanized areas nowadays, you see the potential of economical growth areas as Shanghai, Mumbai and Pearl River Delta! It could make you afraid - Mumbai alrady overtook Sao Paulo in world rank 5 (after Tokyo, Mexico City, New York and Seoul) and Dehli is following this development as well. I would say that in 2020 5 of the top ten world cities are from these two countries (the mentioned ones plus Shanghai, Beijing and Kalkutta).


----------



## Dampyre (Sep 19, 2002)

CHI said:


> Obviously the entire city is urban, as well as surrounding areas like Cicero and Oak Park. Urban areas of Chicago extend far south along the lake well into Indiana. I would still limit the population to 5 million because there are alot of suburbs that are usually included in the 'metro' area. The areas surrounding O'Hare are largely suburban.


Chicago's urbanized population is around 8.5-8.7 million. It was 8.3 million in 2000. Ubanized areas are measured using continuous population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile. Class over.


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

That maybe so Dampyre but other countries have other definitions and it just so happens the US one is very liberal...

(just as an example: 
London's urban area according UK criteria: 8 million
London's urban area according to US Census criteria: 12 million)


----------



## mad_nick (May 13, 2004)

^ Where did you get the figure for the US Census criteria? The reason London's urban area is only about 8 million is the green belt. There are similar situations in the US where the urban area is smaller than it would be if not for a largely unpopulated area in between two urban areas. I LA for instance, the LA urban area is separated from the surrounding urban areas mainly because of unpopulated mountain areas.
So I'm not entirely convinced that the US criteria would ignore the green belt.


----------



## PhillyPhilly90 (Aug 12, 2005)

Travis007 said:


> ^^ No, 19 million _is_ the metro population of NYC, 8 million is about the city proper population.
> 
> Here's how Wikipedia ranks the largest *Metro* populations in the world (2005 estimates) :
> 
> ...




THE 19 MILLION POP OF NY IS THE STATE'S POP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NOT THE CITY!!!!!!


----------

