# The world's largest urban area in terms of volumes of human-made infrastructure?



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

I was just answering your question.


----------



## Effer (Jun 9, 2005)

Tokyo,and NYC?


----------



## Butcher (Dec 13, 2004)

I was making a point more than asking a question Pottebaum.


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

HelloMoto163 said:


> page


These maps are great!


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

Butcher said:


> A bit innacurate. London smaller than Chicago? Yeah, SURE. I am pretty sure they are not to scale. London is a very spread out city. Either that, or only London's city proper is included compared to the other city's greater metro areas.


Every time the sam shit...it's getting tiring...

I'm very flattered that my maps get referenced to every time a discussion like this one comes up, but...must there always be someone doubting the scale?

Yes, they are to scale, the London one is more zoomed in than the New York one. If you took a larger area around it, you would see more build up area, but since London has a green belt around it, the area depicted on that map is the immediate urban area.

Also, Mad Nick did the New York and Chicago ones and Lee Wilson did the Tokyo one, so our different styles of drawing may leave a slight inaccuracy.
That inaccuracy is not big enough to be noticed by the naked eye and it hardly affect the comparison purpose.

The US Census also has a different definition on urban area, to them it's a matter of density. A track with 1000 ppsm+ is urban area. The European maps are based on actual build up area, eventhough -again- it doesn't make much difference when comparing.

Lastly, these maps are 1 1/2 year old, made of base maps older than that so naturally some cities have grown in the mean time and some of the build up area doesn't show.

Believe me, these maps are as accurate as any amateur with non professional software can make them.

Here's the link to my original thread:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?threadid=44966&highlight=selfmade
Have fun!


----------



## Butcher (Dec 13, 2004)

^^ok, sorry. I understand now.


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

No worries, it's just that this has come up so many times already...

But you had no way of knowing since all you saw were a couple of maps with no explanation...


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

Here's another map of London, to the same scale but more zoomed out.
spxy made a map of this one superimposing LA on it, but I can't find that one anymore.


----------



## spxy (Apr 9, 2003)

SHiRO said:


> Yes, they are to scale, the London one is more zoomed in than the New York one. If you took a larger area around it, you would see more build up area, but since London has a green belt around it, the area depicted on that map is the immediate urban area.
> 
> A


Sorry don't want to be a pain, but it is a bit out, not your fault you were working with what you were supplied with.
Bottom one is scaled using google maps.


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

Maybe I'm blind but I don't see any significant difference between the two other than the Google one is more "zoomed out".
Mine even shows parks and is more accurate in that sense.

If anything...Google maps proves that Mad Nick's and my map are accurate...


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)




----------



## spxy (Apr 9, 2003)

I've used London for the control map,and kept it the same size as yours, so your london matches.I superimpossed the coast line around london on to it from google maps which has scale markers.But when I superimpossed the NewYork costline over London from google and sized so the scales matched I had to shrink the NewYork map down considerably so that it would fit the coast line.The scale of the is off a quite a bit making new york too large. 
If you look closly at the top map, london is considerably smaller than in the bottom not even taking into account the surrounding areas.

Here are the two coastlines seperately.


----------



## JayT (Sep 11, 2002)

I'd say Tokyo or Los Angeles. Los Angeles sprawl's so much further than any other city on earth. Tokyo sprawls with 35 million people but is also dense.

Does anyone have images of Australian cities like the one above?


----------



## Sinjin P. (Jul 17, 2005)

I'd say its Tokyo


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

JayT said:


> I'd say Tokyo or Los Angeles. Los Angeles sprawl's so much further than any other city on earth. Tokyo sprawls with 35 million people but is also dense.
> 
> Does anyone have images of Australian cities like the one above?


Click the link...


----------



## london-b (Jul 31, 2004)

What about all the villages in between the towns in the London picture. Millions of people live there and the picture would look more like a bigger sprawl than isolated towns in the Metro.


----------



## Butcher (Dec 13, 2004)

But Shiro, what I was saying is that with your maps, you can't take the London one and stick it on top of the New York one to compare them. You would have to blow the London one up to the same size. Am I right?


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

No, they are the same scale.

People really underestimate the sprawl of US cities, even New York.


----------



## Butcher (Dec 13, 2004)

^^Wow. I didn't know NYC had that much sprawl. I was sure that London had a larger urban arean than New York.


----------



## Third of a kind (Jun 20, 2004)

something I noticed interesting about the ny map's is the sprawl looks mostly around the rail lines


----------



## Hebrewtext (Aug 18, 2004)

Tel-Aviv metro + Jerusalem









London (~ the same scale)


----------



## FastWhiteTA (Jul 24, 2004)

Butcher said:


> ^^Wow. I didn't know NYC had that much sprawl. I was sure that London had a larger urban arean than New York.



NYC metro pop: 22 Million
London metro pop: 12 million

Of course NYC is going to be larger w/ that many more people...So I am not surprised.


----------



## Butcher (Dec 13, 2004)

^^London metro is 18 million. (And is expected to increase by about 3 million in the coming years if I'm not mistaken. 

If you define London's metro in the same way that New York defines its metro, then the figure is 18 million.


----------



## unoh (Aug 13, 2005)

Tokyo has the largest economy in all cities of the world.

Tokyo's GRDP(gross regional domestic product) is as many as 807,300,000,000 USD (2004years).

in per capita, extends to 70,000 USD, appprocimately 

Tokyo looks like future city.

- some tokyo photos
http://kr.dcinside10.imagesearch.ya...c=off&select_arrange=headnum&desc=asc&no=3466


----------



## Joris Goedhart (Jan 20, 2004)

I Haven't heard Northern Europe. From Paris to Amsterdam, from Rotterdam to Frankfurt. Its 1 big area, connected with Highways, Railways, Highspeed rail etc.
In this area live around the 60/70 million people and it is getting connected on a serieus way to London, which is it alread with the Channel tunnel and ferry's (the depart from 10/20 location around the 1 time an houres).
The big cities in this area are countless (Paris, Lille, Brussels, Antwerpen, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hage, Koln etc.)


----------



## PotatoGuy (May 10, 2005)

Los Angeles!!  










wider view, different scale than the rest but it shows you how big LA really is ; )










Other cities on the same scale:
Mexico City:










Chicago:










Tokyo:












for some reason NYC wasnt on there.. 

source: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=180478&page=1&pp=20


----------



## jmancuso (Jan 9, 2003)

certainly not new york. once you get into long island, up into westchester/ rockland counties (upstate), SE connecticut and parts of northern new jersy, it's sprawls like a mofo. tokyo is far more consistant in its density even though it may take up slighly less space becuase of the topography.

chicago spawls into two other states as well; NW indiana and milwaukee, WI.

LA; it's spawling all the way down to san diego

from what i saw of greater london, it is no where near tokyo's insanity either but no where near as "sprawly" as american cities.


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor (Aug 1, 2005)

*So...*

^^ so that means that you agree that it is Tokyo right? And yeah...L.A. does have the most defined sprawl among American cities.


----------



## ♣628.finst (Jul 29, 2005)

1- Tokyo
2- Probably Chicago or NYC.
3- ???


----------



## jmancuso (Jan 9, 2003)

The Cebuano Exultor said:


> ^^ so that means that you agree that it is Tokyo right? And yeah...L.A. does have the most defined sprawl among American cities.



yeah, i rode from one end of the city to the other (narita->haneda) and then flew over the region and there's no debate in my opinion which is the biggest.


----------



## PotatoGuy (May 10, 2005)

Tokyo:











Los Angeles (not all of it, it duznt fit when on the same scale):











I think it's LA w/o a doubt


----------



## Nerima# (Oct 10, 2005)

Tokyo city and the surroundings


----------



## shibuya_suki (Apr 24, 2005)

it seems that tokyo is not the largest area in the world
LA??


----------



## kenlau13 (Sep 28, 2005)

Tokyo-Yokohama


----------



## Eduardo (Sep 21, 2005)

Berlin


----------



## Cobucci (Jun 30, 2005)

Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo can form one big metropolitan area in some years. It'll be a metropolitan area with more than 40 millions inhabitants. But is expeculation yet.


----------

