# New Mega Cities



## aaabbbccc (Mar 8, 2009)

As far as Morocco maybe the Casablanca Rabat regions will merge making a new mega urban area of 8 million people 
today greater Casablanca is 4 million and great rabat is almost 3 million people


----------



## Looking/Up (Feb 28, 2008)

Chrissib said:


> The troubles here will be cleaned up, I hope^^. But anyway, the number of countries that recieve migrants is growing with time as more and more countries will develop. Recently South Korea and some eastern European countries (Czech Rep, Slovenia...) have joined the immigration-club, and others will follow. What about China joining the immigrants-club. A modest immigration rate for China would be 2 million /year. Maybe some SEAsian counries will also start recieving immigrants. There's noting sure about future migration


There is no doubt that immigration destinations around the world will spread as more countries continue to experience economic growth. None of this changes the fact, though, that Canada has the highest per capita immigration rate in the world (1), with no signs that this will slow down. Canada continues to accept less immigrants than those who desire to move here (creating large problems in backlogs). Toronto, as the premier destination of immigrants to Canada, shows no signs of slowing down. Additionally, whose to say that there is a certain level of immigrants that will always be, and that the numbers of such wont increase over time. 



(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration#Canada


----------



## arquitekto (Jun 12, 2009)

Countries and cities with huge population (10million up)' has d potential..


----------



## chicagogeorge (Nov 30, 2004)

isaidso said:


> What boundaries to use for metropolitan Toronto? I've used the Greater Toronto Area + Hamilton (GTA+H) since it's a continuously built up area where one city merges into the next with no breaks in between. The GTA+H has an area of * 8,245 km2 so it's reasonably compact and doesn't take into account far flung areas that aren't in close proximity to the urban area. By comparison the MSA of New York is 17,405 km², the MSA of Chicago is 24,814.7 km2, and Île-de-France (Paris) is 12,012 km2.


MSA's for the most part are also continously built up areas. CSA's on the other hand may have some non-urban land.

Chicago's MSA is at least 9.6 million right now.












Our CSA is approaching 10 million now....











Perhaps the most accurate identification is that of the urbanized area. Here is the 2009 estimates of world cities and their projections for 2025. 

Notice most US cities the urbanized area closely resembles the populations of the MSA's.


----------



## Bartolo (Sep 20, 2004)

^^^ They have the projection for GTA+H way to low... By 2025 the population will probably be closer to 8 million and by 2031 should be up over 8.6 million.

The numbers I'm using are from the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.

https://www.placestogrow.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9&Itemid=14


----------



## chicagogeorge (Nov 30, 2004)

Bartolo said:


> ^^^ They have the projection for GTA+H way to low... By 2025 the population will probably be closer to 8 million and by 2031 should be up over 8.6 million.
> 
> The numbers I'm using are from the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.
> 
> https://www.placestogrow.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9&Itemid=14



Is there a difference between the GTA+H and the Greater Golden Horseshoe? Also, the growth plan is 5 years old almost..... Could there have been revised projections?


----------



## Bartolo (Sep 20, 2004)

chicagogeorge said:


> Is there a difference between the GTA+H and the Greater Golden Horseshoe? Also, the growth plan is 5 years old almost..... Could there have been revised projections?


The GTA+H includes only the Regions of Durham, Halton, Peel, York and the Cities of Toronto and Hamilton. The GGH includes the above plus the County of Northumberland, County of Peterborough, City of Peterborough, County of Simcoe, City of Barrie, City of Orillia, City of Kawartha Lakes, County of Dufferin, County of Wellington, City of Guelph, County of Brant, City of Brantford, Region of Waterloo, Region of Niagara and County of Haldimand. The total population for the whole area is expected to be 11.5 million in 2031. For just the GTA+H it is expected to be 8.62 million. I have not seen any revised numbers, but other people may have some. The next revision will probably occur in 2011 or 2012 after the census is done in 2011.


----------



## India101 (Jul 22, 2008)

It depends what year the cities will pass 10m. India already has Mumbai, Delhi & Kolkata. Bangalore, Chennai, Hyderabad, Ahmedabad, Surat & Pune should pass over the next 10-15 years.


----------



## chicagogeorge (Nov 30, 2004)

Bartolo said:


> The GGH includes the above plus the County of Northumberland, County of Peterborough, City of Peterborough, County of Simcoe, City of Barrie, City of Orillia, City of Kawartha Lakes, County of Dufferin, County of Wellington, City of Guelph, County of Brant, City of Brantford, Region of Waterloo, Region of Niagara and County of Haldimand. The total population for the whole area is expected to be 11.5 million in 2031. .


The Goldern Horshoe is a rather huge area. Some 13,000sq miles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Horseshoe


Comparing it to the Chicago CSA which is 10856 sq mi http://wapedia.mobi/en/Chicago_metropolitan_area


----------



## Bartolo (Sep 20, 2004)

chicagogeorge said:


> The Goldern Horshoe is a rather huge area. Some 13,000sq miles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Horseshoe
> 
> 
> Comparing it to the Chicago CSA which is 10856 sq mi http://wapedia.mobi/en/Chicago_metropolitan_area


The core area of Golden Horseshoe is only 10 000 sq km (less than 4000 sq mi). The population for that area is 6 488 062. The core is what most people consider the Golden Horseshoe. Areas such as Peterborough and Kitchener would not be in the Golden Horseshoe. The GGH is the much larger area that is over 30 000 sq km (near 13 000 sq mi). That area has a population of 8 102 163. 

The population for the core area is expected to be over 8.6 million in 2031. The whole area of over 30 000 sq km is expected to be over 11 million. I do think that the numbers are going to be revised and I would not be surprised if they are revised higher.


----------



## chicagogeorge (Nov 30, 2004)

Bartolo said:


> The core area of Golden Horseshoe is only 10 000 sq km *(less than 4000 sq mi). The population for that area is 6 488 062*..


THis is about half the size of Chicago's *urbanized area *5498.1sqkm/2122.8sqm and in 2000 we had 8,307,904 people. By now upwards of 9 million.

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

Toronto's urbanized area is significantly smaller. 1748.6sqkm/675.1sqmi with a population of 4,753,120 in 2006.


http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/popdwell/Table.cfm?T=801&PR=0&SR=1&S=3&O=D


Personally, I think urbanized areas of cities shows us the true size of a city.


----------



## Bartolo (Sep 20, 2004)

chicagogeorge said:


> THis is about half the size of Chicago's *urbanized area *5498.1sqkm/2122.8sqm and in 2000 we had 8,307,904 people. By now upwards of 9 million.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_urban_areas_of_the_United_States
> 
> ...


I do think so too. The core is divided into many different urban areas. The Toronto urban area is the second densest in North America only behind Los Angeles.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

Any way you slice it, Chicago is the bigger city. You won't get any arguments from most Torontonians regarding that. The population gap is significant, but getting smaller all the time.

Chicago grew about 6% in the last 10 years, while Toronto grew about 19%. It's not a recent phenomenon either. It's been like that for decades. Back in 1950, Chicago had 5,587,000 people while Toronto only had 1,262,000. Chicago was 4.4 times bigger back then. Today Chicago is only 1.6 times bigger. 

http://www.demographia.com/db-1950metro.htm

Unless trend lines alter significantly, there will come a time when the population gap between Chicago and Toronto disappears altogether.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

Bartolo said:


> I do think so too. The core is divided into many different urban areas. The Toronto urban area is the second densest in North America only behind Los Angeles.


Toronto's urban area isn't even densest in Canada. Montreal is denser, followed by Vancouver. There was a thread about this very subject, but I can't find it. Montreal has had the densest urban area in Canada for over a century. Before that, I believe it was Quebec City.

Toronto's urban area may become densest soon, but it's not there yet. Another 10-15 years of growth in Toronto should accomplish that.


----------



## dennis911 (Jul 11, 2008)

Toronto is definately on the rise. Now we need to fix the subway.

I think Dallas can do it, they will hav 8.7 million in 2025 so in 2035 10 million will be reality rather than a posibility.

Chicago - Rockford will add Milwaukee to its CSA at some point before 2030, there's another 13 million


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

isaidso said:


> *Can Toronto reach 10,000,000?*


Yes, but would it in fact be a city by then, considering its current, overall taste for suburban sumptuousness, right?

Lampposts, asphalt, gutters, etc: there's more to city life than just those incidental ingredients (oops, I ought to have written "hydro poles" in place of lampposts...). Where I live, for instance, it's clear -say- telling apart which passengers on my trains hail from the 'burbs (or outlying areas) from those hailing from within the city itself; among many others, this distinction never revealed itself there.

Nowadays in Canada, the term "urban" merely implies "suburban"; that's cheating plus the country knows it.


----------



## chicagogeorge (Nov 30, 2004)

dennis911 said:


> Chicago - Rockford will add Milwaukee to its CSA at some point before 2030, there's another 13 million


Yeah a merging of the Milwaukee CSA with the Chicago CSA along with Rockford is a forgone conclusion. There is a mere 75 miles that separates the city of Chicago from both Milwaukee, and Rockford.

Though I think this will happen sometime shortly after 2030. Not before. Commuter levels between the two areas need to increase for there to be an official merger by Census definition. But like you said, the population of Chicago/Milwaukee/Rockford will be over 13 million by then. Easily. Heck, Chicago's CSA alone should be close to 12 million by 2030 or 2040 and in addition, 2.4 million from Milwaukee and 400,000 from Rockford you get a total of near 15 million.




isaidso said:


> Unless trend lines alter significantly, there will come a time when the population gap between Chicago and Toronto disappears altogether.


I think the Greater Golden Horseshoe will continue to experience robust growth, but I doubt that it will ever catch up to Chicago. For one, we will eventually swallow up Milwaukee and Rockford, and even if we didn't, at current growth rates, it wont be until 2040 at minimum when the Golden Horshoe and Chicago's CSA (as defined today) will have similar populations. Chicago's CSA is growing by about 600,000 per decade. So at this rate Chicago's CSA will be at 11.8 million by 2040. This without Milwaukee.

In terms of urbanized area, Chicago Milwaukee and Chicago and Rockford are nearly completely merged. This is a map of urban land in 2000. There was probably no more than 20 miles of rural land btween Chicago and Milwaukee and Chicago and Rockford then. I'd imagine that has been intense urbanization between the two since.


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

I recall an old CMSA designation that had Chicago's metro reaching around the lake into Michigan! :nuts: Leaving out secondary cities like Hamilton and Milwaukee that are still somewhat independent of their larger neighbors, both T.O. and Chicago should reach parity. for now, the momentum is clearly on Toronto's side and if it can expand the TSX into a major global exchange, T.O. could pull away. Chicago's problem is that while every major US and global firm has a presence there, very few are based there. In a bad economy, the first thing they do is "cut the Chicago office". Chicago needs to rebuild its manufacturing base and leverage the intellectual capital to hedge that problem or it could just keep spinning its wheels.


----------



## chicagogeorge (Nov 30, 2004)

desertpunk said:


> I recall an old CMSA designation that had Chicago's metro reaching around the lake into Michigan! :nuts:.


Even by the new CSA standards, Michigan City (near the Michigan/Indiana state border) is included in Chicago's CSA which is about the same distance from the city limits of Chicago as is Milwaukee and Rockford.


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

chicagogeorge said:


> Even by the new CSA standards, Michigan City (near the Michigan/Indiana state border) is included in Chicago's CSA which is about the same distance from the city limits of Chicago as is Milwaukee and Rockford.


The old one I saw included New Holland Mich.!


----------



## chicagogeorge (Nov 30, 2004)

desertpunk said:


> Chicago's problem is that while every major US and global firm has a presence there, very few are based there. .


The city of Chicago has 11 fortune 500 companies, Only NYC, Houston, and Atlanta have more.

The Chicago area has 33 fortune 500 companies, and 60 of the 66 fortune 1000 companies based in Illinois are located in the Chicago metropolitan area.

(2007)
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2007/states/CA.html


----------



## Azia (Nov 18, 2007)

*re*



Chrissib said:


> There are several candidates. I'll post mine:
> 
> 
> Toronto, Phoenix, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Washington, Bogota, Lima, Algier, Abidjan, Accra, Kinshasa, Addis Abeba, Nairobi, Dar Es Salaam, Khartoum, Kampala, Baghdad, Riyadh, Lahore, Bangalore, Chennai, Hyderabad, Ahmedabad, Kuala Lumpur, Saigon, Hanoi, Wuhan, Tianjin, Xian, Chongqing and Chengdu.
> ...


is it really impossible that europe want have any new megacity in the next decades ?? i think there are madrid and barcelona they both have god chance to become megacities .. ??


----------



## Pavlemadrid (Nov 30, 2006)

^^
Madrid has around 6,700.000 inh in the real metropolitan area, and it has grown around 1,500.000 inh. since 2000.
Past year Madrid during our famous spanish crisis grew in 70.000 new inhabitants.


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

chicagogeorge said:


> The city of Chicago has 11 fortune 500 companies, Only NYC, Houston, and Atlanta have more.
> 
> The Chicago area has 33 fortune 500 companies, and 60 of the 66 fortune 1000 companies based in Illinois are located in the Chicago metropolitan area.
> 
> ...


Major insurers that exist there as part of their regulator shopping, Boeing, which only has their CEO suite in Chicago, and Walgreens? Where are the big financials? The big banks? Chicago has the coveted CBOT but aside from that, the city's financial sector was hollowed out in the 1980s and '90s.


----------



## Resident (Aug 18, 2006)

I seriously don't see Atlanta seeing 10 million anytime. There has to be serious infrastructure to accomodate that number. It's nothing against Atl, seriously but I can't believe that will happen. I think Dallas, Houston and Phoenix are on that list as well.


----------



## chicagogeorge (Nov 30, 2004)

desertpunk said:


> Chicago has the coveted CBOT but aside from that, the city's financial sector was hollowed out in the 1980s and '90s.



Yes this did occur, but do you have to have big banks based in your city to give it a "global" stamp? I think having multifaceted industries is extremely important to the vitality of a city. Chicago has suffered a gutting in certain business sectors like you said, but hopefully better times are ahead.



Chicago along with Toronto are both in the same Alpha ranking. 

















Btw, this was an interesting graph on the GTA's population forecast for 2031..













The GTA projection of 9.1 million in around 2030 and Chicago's *MSA*population projected to be 10.8 million leave a 1.7 million difference.


----------



## dennis911 (Jul 11, 2008)

chicagogeorge said:


> Yeah a merging of the Milwaukee CSA with the Chicago CSA along with Rockford is a forgone conclusion. There is a mere 75 miles that separates the city of Chicago from both Milwaukee, and Rockford.
> 
> Though I think this will happen sometime shortly after 2030. Not before. Commuter levels between the two areas need to increase for there to be an official merger by Census definition. But like you said, the population of Chicago/Milwaukee/Rockford will be over 13 million by then. Easily. Heck, Chicago's CSA alone should be close to 12 million by 2030 or 2040 and in addition, 2.4 million from Milwaukee and 400,000 from Rockford you get a total of near 15 million.
> 
> ...


Wow Milwaukee at 2.4 million? I thought they only had 1.7 million?


----------



## chicagogeorge (Nov 30, 2004)

dennis911 said:


> Wow Milwaukee at 2.4 million? I thought they only had 1.7 million?


They currently are estimated at 1.8 million, but bu 2030-2040, they should be between 2.1 and 2.4 million.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

trainrover said:


> Yes, but would it in fact be a city by then, considering its current, overall taste for suburban sumptuousness, right?


I suppose you haven't read 'Places To Grow', information on the green belt, or any of the other urban plans for the Golden Horseshoe. They're not exactly news any more; they came out a long time ago. Your perceptions are about 5 years out of date.

If you read through the posts, it also suggests that the GTA+H should reach 10,000,000 by itself. The GTA+H at 10,000,000 would equate to 1,213 people/km2. That's not high, but still dense enough to be considered 'city'. The density of the Montreal CMA in 2006 was 854 people/km2, while the density of the New York metropolitan area in 2009 was 1,096 people/km2.


----------



## Bartolo (Sep 20, 2004)

isaidso said:


> I suppose you haven't read 'Places To Grow', information on the green belt, or any of the other urban plans for the Golden Horseshoe. They're not exactly news any more; they came out a long time ago. Your perceptions are about 5 years out of date.
> 
> If you read through the posts, it also suggests that the GTA+H should reach 10,000,000 by itself. The GTA+H at 10,000,000 would equate to 1,213 people/km2. That's not high, but still dense enough to be considered 'city'. The density of the Montreal CMA in 2006 was 854 people/km2, while the density of the New York metropolitan area in 2009 was 1,096 people/km2.


The area that will actually be developed is not really going to grow much over the next 25 years. The Places to grow has set the urban limits for the areas that are with in the Places to Grow. The area will expand, but for the population increase will be greater than the actually land that is developed. 40% of all development will be infill by 2014. I think it will also be increased once it is revised, maybe not this time, but the next revision.


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

Resident said:


> I seriously don't see Atlanta seeing 10 million anytime. There has to be serious infrastructure to accomodate that number. It's nothing against Atl, seriously but I can't believe that will happen. I think Dallas, Houston and Phoenix are on that list as well.


Atlanta has been making serious efforts to rein in the sprawl and densify with infill and vertical growth and it's paying off. The city is at a historical population peak. The surrounding counties are still stuck in the 1960s but eventually, they'll see the light. The metro is already so massive geographically that simply bringing their density closer to LA's will put them in the ballpark. Dallas/Ft Worth already has over 6.5 million and continues to grow fast, doubling nearly every 25 years. Houston likewise. The US is on track to reach 400 million people by 2040. Where will they all live? Dubuque?


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

Bartolo said:


> The area that will actually be developed is not really going to grow much over the next 25 years.


That's right! It's densification that will absorb almost all of the population growth.


----------



## chicagogeorge (Nov 30, 2004)

desertpunk said:


> The metro is already so massive geographically that simply bringing their density closer to LA's will put them in the ballpark. Dallas/Ft Worth already has over 6.5 million and continues to grow fast, doubling nearly every 25 years. Houston likewise. The US is on track to reach 400 million people by 2040.



Atlanta, Houston, and Dallas will surely hit 10 million by no later than 2050. Phoenix on the otherhand may not considering the fact that there are serious viability factors in play. Water for one thing.





> Where will they all live? Dubuque?



Here is somthing interesting in the news....



> *New population study redefines ‘heartland’*By DAVID GOLDSTEIN
> The Star’s Washington correspondent
> 
> So are you, Charleston, S.C, even with all your Spanish moss and Southern charm, and Portland Ore., way out there on the Pacific Coast.
> ...


Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2010/05/14/1946843/new-population-study-redefines.html#ixzz0oTWzrzbc


----------



## dennis911 (Jul 11, 2008)

chicagogeorge Dallas is supposed to have 8.8 million in 2025. 10 million will not be that far off.


----------



## chicagogeorge (Nov 30, 2004)

dennis911 said:


> chicagogeorge Dallas is supposed to have 8.8 million in 2025. 10 million will not be that far off.


 Dallas might indeed hit 10 million by 2030-2040. It depends on a number of scenarios. 
http://www.visionnorthtexas.org/regionalchoices/RegChoices_NorthTexas2030.pdf












For Houston, the city alone will have 3.6 million and it's seat, Harris County is projected to have 6.7 million people by 2060
http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/Demographics/demograph_docs/PopProjections.htm


----------



## Anderson Geimz (Mar 29, 2008)

LOL at people believing Dallas, Houston or Atlanta hitting 10 million or the US 400 million.
Not going to happen people...


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

Anderson Geimz said:


> LOL at people believing Dallas, Houston or Atlanta hitting 10 million or the US 400 million.
> Not going to happen people...


The US Census Bureau Populations Projection Program is projecting a population of 405,655,000 by 2040. I think they may know more about the subject than a random eurotroll. :|

Since 1990, the Dallas CMA has grown over 58%, the Houston CMA has grown over 53%, and the Atlanta CMA has grown over 77%. To presume that that kind of massive growth would halt would be a big bet against history.


----------



## Anderson Geimz (Mar 29, 2008)

desertpunk said:


> The US Census Bureau Populations Projection Program is projecting a population of 405,655,000 by 2040. I think they may know more about the subject than a random eurotroll. :|
> 
> Since 1990, the Dallas CMA has grown over 58%, the Houston CMA has grown over 53%, and the Atlanta CMA has grown over 77%. To presume that that kind of massive growth would halt would be a big bet against history.


They must be the only bureau in the world that can predict the future. Wow..., 30 years no less!
You can't take current or past growth rates and project them that far into the future.
Dallas, Houston and Atlanta already are among the least sustainable cities in the world. They did see high growth rates in the past, do you really think they're going to sustain those for the next 30/40 years or is it more likely they go the way of each and every other city in history and stabilize at one point (maybe to have other periods of decline or growth in the future, who knows?). This is the bet against history!
Same thing with US growth. I know Americans think they're living in some special place but it is more likely that birthrates are going to drop like everywhere else in the developed world, that immigration is going to drop as Mexico is getting more developed and especially in a period of relative decline for the US.


----------



## El Mariachi (Nov 1, 2007)

Anderson Geimz said:


> LOL at people believing Dallas, Houston or Atlanta hitting 10 million or the US 400 million.
> Not going to happen people...


Why is this so shocking to you? We are already estimated to be at around 308 million and are steadily growing. 

As for Dallas, Houston, and Atlanta. These cities will continue to grow as long as they are attractive. Warm climates, low taxes, cheap costs of living, continued immigration, jobs/manufacturing continuing to move down there, etc. All three of these cities will eventually densify, add more public transit, etc.


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

Anderson Geimz said:


> They must be the only bureau in the world that can predict the future. Wow..., 30 years no less!
> You can't take current or past growth rates and project them that far into the future.
> Dallas, Houston and Atlanta already are among the least sustainable cities in the world. They did see high growth rates in the past, do you really think they're going to sustain those for the next 30/40 years or is it more likely they go the way of each and every other city in history and stabilize at one point (maybe to have other periods of decline or growth in the future, who knows?). This is the bet against history!
> Same thing with US growth. I know Americans think they're living in some special place but it is more likely that birthrates are going to drop like everywhere else in the developed world, that immigration is going to drop as Mexico is getting more developed and especially in a period of relative decline for the US.


We receive immigrants from all over the world. A large number of recent mexican immigrants are not even counted by the census. That number has been estimated in the 6 million-12 million range. Birth rates in the US are holding steady at above replacement. And WTH does "sustainability" have to do with growth? How sustainable is Dubai which has doubled in the last decade? Or any major city around the world with growing populations and far fewer sewer, water and sanitation services than the US? You're so 2002 in your thinking it hurts! hno:


----------



## chicagogeorge (Nov 30, 2004)

The US grew by 100 million people since 1980. I see know reason why we wont add an addition 100 million in another 30 years if not more. As desertpunk said, birth rates are holding steady overall, but immigration rates are actually *increasing*


It is evident that our little Eurotroll has ***** envoy.


----------



## Anderson Geimz (Mar 29, 2008)

chicagogeorge said:


> The US grew by 100 million people since 1980. I see *know* reason why we wont add an *addition* 100 million in another 30 years if not more. As desertpunk said, birth rates are holding steady overall, but immigration rates are actually *increasing*
> 
> 
> It is evident that our little Eurotroll has ***** *envoy*.


Yes I have ***** envoy...:|
Learn to write your own language you douche...


----------



## dennis911 (Jul 11, 2008)

Was that really necessary anderson?


----------



## chicagogeorge (Nov 30, 2004)

^^

Don't worry he has made a many friends over in the DLM thread :rofl:




Anderson Geimz said:


> Yes I have ***** envoy...:|
> Learn to write your own language you douche...





I tend to skip spell checking when I'm in a rush, or when I'm dealing with chimps like you on the internet. 
Why are you such a turd? Weren't you hugged enough when growing up? 



***** envy:



> know Americans think they're living in some special place


Most people think their country is a special place.



> but it is more likely that birthrates are going to drop like everywhere else in the developed world,


they has been, yet our population is continuing to grow.



> that immigration is going to drop as Mexico is getting more developed


You are totally clueless as to what the economic, political, and social situation is in Mexico, and btw clueless posterboy... Only 1/3rd of all immigrants to the US are from Mexico. This translates to nearly 900,000 immigrants arriving from countries other than Mexico to the United States each year. How do you like dem apples :yes:



> and especially in a period of relative decline for the US.


Yeah right..... You wish.... hence the envy of the larger membrane 



The US Census has in fact underscored population growth by their own estimates for at least the last two decades. So it is very likely that 400 million is not only going to be our population bby 2050 (barring a nuclear attack, an asteriod, or some massive pandemic), we may actually be closer to 420 million by some scenarios.



> *Census Projection - US Population
> At 420 Million by 2050*
> 
> New population projections from the Census Bureau show U.S. population will grow to 420 million by 420, not 404 million as projected in its last estimate five years ago. The higher projection is based on Census 2000 data


http://www.rense.com/general35/420.htm




Even the folks over in the US lovin United Nations give a best estimate of 400 million for the U.S.











But then again, the UN has been wrong on sooooo many projections as of late


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

^^
1 billion has been discussed by the end of the century. But it's too far to project.


----------



## chicagogeorge (Nov 30, 2004)

desertpunk said:


> ^^
> 1 billion has been discussed by the end of the century. But it's too far to project.


At some point I really hope that more city pllanners and suburban governments adopt smart growth policies. For Chicago (suburban sprawl) they are non existent. A professor of urban studies at UIC once told me (back about 20 years ago) that suburban sprawl outside the city of Chicago was eating away land at a rate of 0.7 miles in every direction.

Our Euro chimp thnks the US is headed the way of many EU countries....



tablemtn said:


> Kinder, küche … Germany's lowest birthrate yet blamed on dated policy
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Bartolo (Sep 20, 2004)

I do not understand why states do not implement something like the Places to Grow Act that the Province of Ontario has implemented. The individual municipalities and Regions/Counties continue to be the approval authority, but the province basically sets out a list of goals and requirements for any new developments.

One thing you do not see here in the Golden Horseshoe area is miles and miles of really low residential development. We have suburban sprawl but is somewhat dense, even though it is bad, the lots are not super large. Biggest you see being built today are 50'x100' for most part, with the average lot being 30'-35' wide.


----------



## chicagogeorge (Nov 30, 2004)




----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

chicagogeorge said:


> It is evident that our little Eurotroll has ***** envoy.


Hey my fellow Americans, I know you're the better Europe, but can you give us some demographic hints for more growth?^^


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

Chrissib said:


> Hey my fellow Americans, I know you're the better Europe, but can you give us some demographic hints for more growth?^^


Easy, bring in *millions* of immigrants with high birth rates...and let the Mormon missionaries work their magic!


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

desertpunk said:


> Easy, bring in *millions* of immigrants with high birth rates...and let the Mormon missionaries work their magic!


First thing we've done, the second thing will come from itself, says the book 'Shall the religious inherit the earth'. :lol:


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

Bartolo said:


> I do not understand why states do not implement something like the Places to Grow Act that the Province of Ontario has implemented. The individual municipalities and Regions/Counties continue to be the approval authority, but the province basically sets out a list of goals and requirements for any new developments.
> 
> One thing you do not see here in the Golden Horseshoe area is miles and miles of really low residential development. We have suburban sprawl but is somewhat dense, even though it is bad, the lots are not super large. Biggest you see being built today are 50'x100' for most part, with the average lot being 30'-35' wide.


A *lot* of city planners have been studying Portland Oregon and its Urban Growth Boundary as well as planning in Canada something that all down here admire. The problem is a political system fueled at the local level by real estate interests who demand pro-sprawl policies. Unlike Canada's provinces, states have very little say in local planning issues and the federal government continues to reward sprawl with huge highway spending and too little support for mass transit due to the heavyhanded tactics of rural state senators in particular.


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

Anderson Geimz said:


> Learn to write your own language you douche...


Uhm, they don't own it because folks here don't bother to master it; the same could be said for French and Spanish. hno: By the way, N Americans go to great extremes at cooking/doctoring their statistical data, I just know we're gonna get caught real bad some day...


----------



## Anderson Geimz (Mar 29, 2008)

The UN has NEVER been right on demograpic projections. They projected that Brazil would be 200 million by 1990. Twenty years later they're at 196 million.

Anyone who thinks the US is going to reach 400 million and already overstretched cities like Dallas, Houston or Atlanta 10 million is severly delusional.


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

trainrover said:


> Uhm, they don't own it because folks here don't bother to master it; the same could be said for French and Spanish. hno: By the way, N Americans go to great extremes at cooking/doctoring their statistical data, I just know we're gonna get caught real bad some day...


Troll much? :|


----------



## Anderson Geimz (Mar 29, 2008)

desertpunk said:


> ^^
> 1 billion has been discussed by the end of the century. But it's too far to project.


:lol::lol::lol:

And 2050 isn't? :bash:

1 billion?! I bet there are even idiots believing nonsense like that.
You see that blue line in the UN graph? That's what's going to happen (more or less). I guess it's some American thing religiously believing in everlasting growth...


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

Anderson Geimz said:


> :lol::lol::lol:
> 
> *And 2050 isn't?* :bash:
> 
> ...


LOL Do you even read your own posts? :lol:


----------



## chicagogeorge (Nov 30, 2004)

The US grew by nearly 100 million since 1990. We also grew by at least 30 million in the last *10 years*. Why is it so inconceivable for some people to think that we wont be able to reach 400 million in the next 40 years??














Anderson Geimz said:


> I guess it's some American thing religiously believing in everlasting growth...



The United States has more resources than India and China yet they manage to tack on hundreds of millions in just a few short decades.....


----------



## Anderson Geimz (Mar 29, 2008)

chicagogeorge said:


> The US grew by nearly 100 million since 1990. We also grew by at least 30 million in the last *10 years*.


First it was 100 million since 1980, now it's 100 million since 1990...:nuts:

We already knew that besides English you also have a problem interpreting graphs, or in this case just reading them right.
Back here in reality, the US grew by 100 million since 1973. It took 37 years, almost twice as long as what you claim.
And the growth rate is slowing. For the first time since WW2 it's below 10%. Expect that to go down more.



> Why is it so inconceivable for some people to think that we wont be able to reach 400 million in the next 40 years??


Because there is no such thing as unlimited growth.


----------



## chicagogeorge (Nov 30, 2004)

Anderson Geimz said:


> First it was 100 million since 1980, now it's 100 million since 1990...:nuts:
> 
> We already knew that besides English you also have a problem interpreting graphs, or in this case just reading them right.


I'm at work. I can only take short breaks so I have to type fast. Ok. I'm sorry . Is that ok with you jackass? 



In 1980 the US had a population of 226,545,805. In 2010 we are near 310 million. 83 million in 30 years. In 40 more years at these levels we will add 100 million more.



> And the growth rate is slowing. For the first time since WW2 it's below 10%.
> Expect that to go down more.


 % growth rates can decrease but numerically we are adding more than ever.




> Because there is no such thing as unlimited growth.



No kidding.

Still they each reached a billion (and growing even with one child policies in place for China) on very limited resources.


----------



## GENIUS LOCI (Nov 18, 2004)

To stay on topic I wanted to submit to you the Milan case

Milan is the main city of a Region of more than 10 mio inhabitants: mostly of 'em live in the urban plains sprawled in a densely urbanized axe between Varese and Brescia with Milan city as 'core'










A map of the soil cosumption (dark grey are the 'historical' inurbations, while grey are the following expansions)










Milan proper metro area has a 60 km radium circa from Milan city geographical center: within this area live about 7.5 mio people

Lombardy in its complex grew of 10% in population in last decade, and Milan proper metro grew a bit more: if it will remain at this level for next ones (what we can't project for sure as I said in my previous post) probably the same area will have more than 10 mio in 30 years or so.
But something else could happen: Milan metro and Brescia (80 km East of Milan) metro can merge in few years thanks to the continuos urbanization forming a gigantic conurbation. 
Today Brescia metro is is between 1.5 and 2 mio


----------



## GENIUS LOCI (Nov 18, 2004)

Mr Bricks said:


> Are we just talking populations figures here? To me a "mega city" is a large urban metropolis that can offer a sophisticated urban lifestyle. Many large cities in the US does not live up to this. Let's take Houston, the fourth largest city in the US, as an example. The city is home to almost 6 million people but still the high-rise core is tiny, and the city overall is a gigantic sprawl (just like LA).
> 
> A European city like Copenhagen (2 million people) is denser, more urban and can definitely offer its citizens a greater urban experience in every sense of the word. Still, Houston is considered a great metropolis while Copenhagen is not.


You're right: but with Megacity we mean a city with +10 mio, as Metropolis stands for a city with +1 mio inhabitants... obviously a metropolis is something more complex and different in common sense, but the 'word' was born on 'quantity basis'


----------



## dennis911 (Jul 11, 2008)

Milan seems very more closely linked than most NA cities. Thanks for the picture.


----------



## Restless (Oct 31, 2009)

What are the population projections for Italy in 2020?

Is the population declining?


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

Restless said:


> What are the population projections for Italy in 2020?
> 
> Is the population declining?


From the International Data Base, International Programs Center, Population Division, Us Census Bureau: *whew*

Italy 2025: 56,234,163
.......2050: 50,389,841

Canada 2025: 37,558,781
...........2050: 41,135,648


----------



## Anderson Geimz (Mar 29, 2008)

Hopefully you realize population decline for Italy has been predicted for years now and every year it has been growing...

That above prediction means absolutely shit...


----------



## El Mariachi (Nov 1, 2007)

Mr Bricks said:


> Are we just talking populations figures here? To me a "mega city" is a large urban metropolis that can offer a sophisticated urban lifestyle. Many large cities in the US does not live up to this. Let's take Houston, the fourth largest city in the US, as an example. The city is home to almost 6 million people but still the high-rise core is tiny, and the city overall is a gigantic sprawl (just like LA).
> 
> A European city like Copenhagen (2 million people) is denser, more urban and can definitely offer its citizens a greater urban experience in every sense of the word. Still, Houston is considered a great metropolis while Copenhagen is not.


To be a mega city, you only need a population requirement. Sure, Houston isn't as charming or as dense as Copenhagen---but it is still a huge city that offers an urban lifestyle. It sprawls quite a bit, but it's core isn't tiny at all.

check these photo threads out if you doubt this.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1122317

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1119831

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1102237

L.A. sprawls too, but it's dense and urban sprawl. By all means is it a mega city. It just doesn't have a whole bunch of skyscrapers like NY or Chicago. Copenhagen probally has L.A. beat on charm and historic buildings though.


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

Anderson Geimz said:


> Hopefully you realize population decline for Italy has been predicted for years now and every year it has been growing...
> 
> That above prediction means absolutely shit...


That many North Africans, eh? :lol:


----------



## chicagogeorge (Nov 30, 2004)

desertpunk said:


> That many North Africans, eh? :lol:



Correct. But add 500,000 Albanians in the last 15 years to the North Africans in Italy!:lol: The ONLY reason why Italy's population (like many other European nations) are growing is precisely just that. *Immigration.*


If not for immigration the US would also eventually be on the decline (or stabilize) but not for a few decades....


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

I will not dispute the US population projectios like Anderson did. I believe US will reach the 400 million barrier before 2050. 

However, he made a good point: demographic growth can change suddenly, specially for metropolitan areas (and specially in the US, where people move around all the time). It's impossible to say for sure if Dallas, Houston and Atlanta will keep the same growth rate or not. Looking into the past:

*Detroit Metro Area population growth* (9 counties area):



So, between 1900-1910, *30,7%* of growth; 1910-1920, *90,1%*; 1920-1930, *61,9%*; 1930-1940, *9,6%*; 1940-1950, *27,1%*; 1950-1960, *25,9%*; 1960-1970, *13,7%*. The riots take place in 1967, and suddenly, everything changes: 1970-1980, *-0,5%*; 1980-1990, *-2,1%*; 1990-2000, *5,1%*.

How someone in the early 60's could forecast the Detroit trends in the next decades? The trends suggested that Detroit could reach the 10 million barrier before 2000.


----------



## Mr Bricks (May 6, 2005)

El Mariachi said:


> To be a mega city, you only need a population requirement. Sure, Houston isn't as charming or as dense as Copenhagen---but it is still a huge city that offers an urban lifestyle. It sprawls quite a bit, but it's core isn't tiny at all.
> 
> check these photo threads out if you doubt this.
> 
> ...



I wasn´t only talking about charm and quality of architecture. Those pics you posted are nice but supports my argument, not yours. I don´t want to sound harsh but all I can see in those pics is a huge office park and suburbia. Some people may like that but "urban", "sophisticated" and "trendy" are not words I would use to describe Houston. Houston lacks all those things that makes a city a true metropolis. In that sense a city like Boston is more urban and sophisticated than Houston.

But if we're talking population figures then this is irrelevant. 



El Mariachi said:


> L.A. sprawls too, but it's dense and urban sprawl. By all means is it a mega city. It just doesn't have a whole bunch of skyscrapers like NY or Chicago. Copenhagen probally has L.A. beat on charm and historic buildings though.


But "a whole bunch of skyscrapers" is not the reason why NYC is more of a real city than LA. LA has a tiny centre when compared with a city like Barcelona which is home to only 5 million people compared to LA´s 15. Still, I imagine Barcelona offers an urban experience more like Paris or New York, while LA looks more like Houston.


----------



## GENIUS LOCI (Nov 18, 2004)

desertpunk said:


> From the International Data Base, International Programs Center, Population Division, Us Census Bureau: *whew*
> 
> Italy 2025: 56,234,163
> .......2050: 50,389,841


Cool projections

In the real world Italy passed from 56 mio of 1999 to over 60 mio of 2009 

Thanks to immigration previously

This is Italian official census website if you want to check http://www.demo.istat.it/index.html


----------



## GENIUS LOCI (Nov 18, 2004)

chicagogeorge said:


> Correct. But add 500,000 Albanians in the last 15 years to the North Africans in Italy!:lol: The ONLY reason why Italy's population (like many other European nations) are growing is precisely just that. *Immigration.*
> 
> 
> If not for immigration the US would also eventually be on the decline (or stabilize) but not for a few decades....


Actually immigration in Europe has a similar 'behaviour' to the one in US

Italy had a 0 growth or even negative growth from half of '80s till 2000; there was immigration but at low level (30/50k per year maximum during the '90s) and couldn't undo the effect of negative natural balance.
From 2000 to 2010 immigrants each year were everagely 300/500k with max. of over 700k: what happened is not only the overcome of the negative growth of population, but even a higher birth rate (still low), because immigrants have a better birth rate.
In particular you can see this in regions with a high percentage of immigrants, as Lombardy


----------



## aliveinchains (Jan 10, 2007)

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=400883&page=76
^^
Illegal immigrants from Africa are not counted to Italian population growth. Most Italian immigrants come from EE especially ex-Yugoslavia and South America, many from East Asia and Christian Africa…muslim immigrants are the minority. 
The town where I live is inhabited by a small society of Italians…(Bielsko-Biala is FIAT headquarter for Poland). I talked with one guy who explained me that immigrants who made up 10% of Italian society are responsible for creating 20% of GDP…without them Italy would die…The major problem with Italian economy is its south regions, that is what north Italian claim…

The urbanization process in north part of Lombardy can also be made up by “second-houses”, I mean apartments that are visited only on weekends or holidays, apartments that can also be purchased by people outside Lombardy or even outside Italy but generally stay empty for most part of a year.


----------



## GENIUS LOCI (Nov 18, 2004)

Second houses are a phenomenon you can find quite everywhere in Italy.

About illegal immigrants from Africa: I think the mediatic effect of people reaching Italy by see (who are prevalently Central Africans and not North Africans) make the things appear a bit 'distorted'... percentually they're few respect the total amount of illegal immigrants who for most enter the country by plane with a touristic visa (and obviously remain over the time of the visa to work), secondarily through land borders and finally by the see

Anyway the data I provided about Italy population don't take in account illegal immigrants: they're estimated to be at least 1 mio (some one says over 3 mio...)

P.S.
@aliveinchains
In the link you provided in that page we're talking about immigrants who become Italian citizens


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

GENIUS LOCI said:


> Cool projections
> 
> In the real world Italy passed from 56 mio of 1999 to over 60 mio of 2009
> 
> ...


I thought Italy was over 60 million too and then I saw these projections. BTW, the US Census Bureau projections can be dead-on or they can can be so far off the mark it's laughable. Their projections for many US cities have been challenged in court since the government uses them to budget money.


----------



## El Mariachi (Nov 1, 2007)

Mr Bricks said:


> I wasn´t only talking about charm and quality of architecture. Those pics you posted are nice but supports my argument, not yours. I don´t want to sound harsh but all I can see in those pics is a huge office park and suburbia. Some people may like that but "urban", "sophisticated" and "trendy" are not words I would use to describe Houston. Houston lacks all those things that makes a city a true metropolis. In that sense a city like Boston is more urban and sophisticated than Houston.
> 
> But if we're talking population figures then this is irrelevant.
> 
> ...



Yes, you are talking about charm and architecture. Houston has a heavilly populated core, yet you are essentially judging it on aesthetics. It's more spread out and car dominant, but it's still urban---but in a different way from most cities. Being walkable and dense really has nothing to do with a city being a mega city. I really don't see where you are getting suburbia and office park out of these pictures. 

As for L.A., you really don't know what your talking about and are probally judging L.A. from photo threads of only certain neighborhoods. To say it isn't a real city is ignorant. It's density and urbanity is pretty varied. It has a smallish downtown core (compared to cities like NY or Chicago), but that doesn't mean it's not urban. It just means that it's a very spread out city. Urban experience has nothing to do with mega city, although L.A. offers a good urban experience. The L.A. metro area is huge. The city itself (4 million city proper) is probally closer to mega cities like London----which is a huge city, but much less dense then cities like Barcelona or Paris. 

Look at this epic photo thread. It shows more of L.A. then just Beverly Hills. It's not the prettiest city or the most compact, but to deny the fact that this is one of the prime examples of the word "mega city" is borderline laughable. Like Houston, you are judging it on charm, walkability, and skyscrapers.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=435705&highlight=


----------



## Spikespiegel (Jul 13, 2009)

A dense core doesn't mean that the city has charm, that the city is livable, and that the streets of the city are used for recreational purposes.

Compare LA to these photos:


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

^^lol... what's your point? I'd rather live in LA than there, personally.


----------



## city_thing (May 25, 2006)

I'd take Copenhagen over LA any day personally


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

Mr Bricks said:


> If you take a discussion on an online forum so personally you shouldn't be here. Focus on the relevant stuff please.


I don't take anything that dribbles from your troll claws onto your keyboard personally. You just consistently violate forum rules with your personal attacks. That was my point.



> London is a poor example as Wren's plan was never realized. Furthermore it doesn't look anything like the strict pattern applied on American cities. A city can be planned without using a gridded street system.


Before that street grid, there was *no such thing as street planning* city streets were essentially pathways between property boundaries and nothing more. What London DID do was widen their streets so that flames would not leap so easily between buildings in the future. they also banned extreme overhangs that jutted out into the streets. 



> Washington doesn't look like your average American city. Helsinki´s neo-classical core was modeled after St Petersburg and designed by a German architect. What's your point?


Buffalo NY had the same planner as Washington DC. Some US cities like Boston and Santa Fe NM have a very jumbled, European street layout at their center. My point, since your reading comprehension skills are lacking, is that the ideas that shaped american cities were European, not American. The first truly American street plans were devised in the inner suburbs of Boston and Chicago in the late 1800s.



> Which is what I said in the first place. You then went on about tower blocks and post-war Europe. Make up your mind.


All that I said, *in addition to those tower blocks, not instead of.*



> What utter nonsense. In Germany almost all of the destruction was caused by the war, same goes for Poland. In Britain and the Nordic countries some cities were "modernised" in a horrible way. In Finland the medieval city of Turku has almost been swept away. In Britain large cities (some of the largest in the world a century ago) like Brimingham, Manchester and Liverpool has suffered a lot, but even now these cities are architecturally superior to most cities in the US.


How are they "architecturally superior"? You mean Lego towers and blobs?



> Look at old pics of American cities and you'll see that many have been completely destroyed by suburbia, high ways, malls etc. No comparison to Europe there.


The concepts behind the urban destruction in the 1950s and '60s were borrowed from Le Corbusier.



> Don't expect people to get back on topic after a comment like that.


As if you knew anything about being on topic. Troll.


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

Skyline_FFM said:


> This list is really short!!!!


What else? Spain is kaput (in 2009 the population growth rate in the Madrid province was only +0.6%, whereas in the Barcelona province it was only +0.1%, almost German-like). Ireland is kaput (in 2009 the Irish population registered 0 growth). Italy is kaput (in 2009 the population growth rate in Lombardy was +0.9%). Britain and the Benelux have grown slow for the past 30 years. Germany, well, let's not even talk of Germany. Austria and Switzerland are only in a marginally better state than Germany (Geneva is booming though, but it has less than 1 million people). Sweden, Denmark and Finland are not doing too bad, but neither Copenhagen, nor Stockholm, nor Helsinki reach a growth rate of 1.5% I believe. Eastern Europe is a catastrophe. Only Moscow experiences a significant growth rate, but not above 1.5% due to its already large population.

So the last countries standing are... Norway (thank you gas and oil reserves) and France (thank you French moms). Oslo, the only Norwegian metropolitan area with more than 1 million people, is growing fast, and managed to attract lots of immigrants in 2009, despite the world crisis (they probably came due to the oil and gas economy). In France the Atlantic and Mediterranean costs are still booming despite the crisis (thanks to a teflon birth rate immune to the crisis and thanks to domestic migration, i.e. Parisians moving to coastal sunny areas, which is not influenced by the health of the economy). In those areas (Atlantic coast and southern France), there are four metropolitan areas with more than 1 million people (Bordeaux, Toulouse, Marseille, and Nice), and only Toulouse manages to reach a rate above 1.5%. Bordeaux has always grown more slowly than Toulouse, Nice is a place for retired people, i.e. high death rate, and Marseille has recovered quite a lot since 1999 but due to its already large population (large in a French context) it can't reach a rate above 1.5% (it would need lots of international immigration to achieve that, domestic migration wouldn't be enough, besides the Parisians don't like Marseille, they prefer to move to Toulouse and Bordeaux if they are young, or Nice if they are old).


----------



## Skyline_FFM (May 25, 2008)

brisavoine said:


> What else? Spain is kaput (in 2009 the population growth rate in the Madrid province was only +0.6%, whereas in the Barcelona province it was only +0.1%, almost German-like). Ireland is kaput (in 2009 the Irish population registered 0 growth). Italy is kaput (in 2009 the population growth rate in Lombardy was +0.9%). Britain and the Benelux have grown slow for the past 30 years. Germany, well, let's not even talk of Germany. Austria and Switzerland are only in a marginally better state than Germany (Geneva is booming though, but it has less than 1 million people). Sweden, Denmark and Finland are not doing too bad, but neither Copenhagen, nor Stockholm, nor Helsinki reach a growth rate of 1.5% I believe. Eastern Europe is a catastrophe. Only Moscow experiences a significant growth rate, but not above 1.5% due to its already large population.
> 
> So the last countries standing are... Norway (thank you gas and oil reserves) and France (thank you French moms). Oslo, the only Norwegian metropolitan area with more than 1 million people, is growing fast, and managed to attract lots of immigrants in 2009, despite the world crisis (they probably came due to the oil and gas economy). In France the Atlantic and Mediterranean costs are still booming despite the crisis (thanks to a teflon birth rate immune to the crisis and thanks to domestic migration, i.e. Parisians moving to coastal sunny areas, which is not influenced by the health of the economy). In those areas (Atlantic coast and southern France), there are four metropolitan areas with more than 1 million people (Bordeaux, Toulouse, Marseille, and Nice), and only Toulouse manages to reach a rate above 1.5%. Bordeaux has always grown more slowly than Toulouse, Nice is a place for retired people, i.e. high death rate, and Marseille has recovered quite a lot since 1999 but due to its already large population (large in a French context) it can't reach a rate above 1.5% (it would need lots of international immigration to achieve that, domestic migration wouldn't be enough, besides the Parisians don't like Marseille, they prefer to move to Toulouse and Bordeaux if they are young, or Nice if they are old).


Hmmm, Munich had an annual growth of 1.2%, Mainz of 1.01%, Potsdam hit 2.2% from 2000-2008. Many smaller cities of less than 100k inhabitants had a percentual high growth rate - but regarding a small city in a percentual, then it becomes difficult because 1% of nothing is still nothing. :lol:
Of the big cities, only Dortmund and Essen and Duisburg had negative growth.


----------



## Pavlemadrid (Nov 30, 2006)

brisavoine said:


> What else? Spain is kaput (in 2009 the population growth rate in the Madrid province was only +0.6%, whereas in the Barcelona province it was only +0.1%, almost German-like).


Madrid province population grew aprox. 63.000 inh. during 2009, 0,97%.


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

Skyline_FFM said:


> Hmmm, Munich had an annual growth of 1.2%, Mainz of 1.01%, Potsdam hit 2.2% from 2000-2008.


You have to look at metro area level, not at central city level. In Europe the central municipalities all tend to register increasing growth rates because people are moving back to the centers, but these figures are an optical illusion, just like the figures in the 1970s and 1980s which showed that the central cities were losing population, it was also an optical illusion (because the suburbs were growing a lot, so the metro areas overall were not shrinking). What matters is the growth rate of the entire metro area, which is what I talked about in my post (for example I said Marseille doesn't reach +1.5% per year, that's the entire metro area; the city proper of Marseille, on the other hand, is above +1.5% per year).


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

Pavlemadrid said:


> Madrid province population grew aprox. 63.000 inh. during 2009, 0,97%.


No. According to INE the population of the Madrid province grew from 6,295,011 on Jan. 1, 2009 to 6,335,780 on Jan. 1, 2010, i.e. +40,769 people, or +0.65%. That's a massive deceleration compared to the booming years.


----------



## Skyline_FFM (May 25, 2008)

brisavoine said:


> You have to look at metro area level, not at central city level. In Europe the central municipalities all tend to register increasing growth rates because people are moving back to the centers, but these figures are an optical illusion, just like the figures in the 1970s and 1980s which showed that the central cities were losing population, it was also an optical illusion (because the suburbs were growing a lot, so the metro areas overall were not shrinking). What matters is the growth rate of the entire metro area, which is what I talked about in my post (for example I said Marseille doesn't reach +1.5% per year, that's the entire metro area; the city proper of Marseille, on the other hand, is above +1.5% per year).


tsc tsc. No no. Mainz does not even have a metro area. It is for itself a metro city of Frankfurt. It was city proper, yes. :cheers:
You will have to scroll down the page to see the table:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_Großstädte_in_Deutschland


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

Skyline_FFM said:


> tsc tsc. No no. Mainz does not even have a metro area. It is for itself a metro city of Frankfurt.


I know. That's why you have to look at the growth rate of the entire Rhine-Main metro area. It makes little sense to look at the growth rate of Mayence only, just as it makes little sense to look at the growth rate of Versailles only. What if Versailles grew at +3% a year? Ok, it grows at 3%, it has a huge impact locally, but at a macro level it means nothing. What matters is the growth rate of the metro area.


----------



## Skyline_FFM (May 25, 2008)

brisavoine said:


> I know. That's why you have to look at the growth rate of the entire Rhine-Main metro area. It makes little sense to look at the growth rate of Mayence only, just as it makes little sense to look at the growth rate of Versailles only. What if Versailles grew at +3% a year? Ok, it grows at 3%, it has a huge impact locally, but at a macro level it means nothing. What matters is the growth rate of the metro area.


I think Rhein-Main is doing well in terms of growth, just as Munich and Hamburg. But as far as I know. Rhine-Ruhr has only local points the are still growing, while it is overall shrinking. This is more due to the Ruhr region than the Rhine region. Essen fell behind Stuttgart and will also fall behind Düsseldorf. It has once been the 6th biggest city.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

Skyline_FFM said:


> Italy's birth rates are just as poor as the birth rates of Germany. And Milan was for a long time a fast shrinking city. All the biggest cities in Germany continue to grow.
> And honestly I have nothing against some kind of people leaving Germany. Spain has no longer an "amazing" immigration. That "amazing immigration" also caused an "amazing unemployment" with "amazing slum growth". Honestly I think that immigration into social welfare systems is a bad business.
> And France's growth is due to high fertility rates with moderate immigration rates and not due to mass immigration.
> You just show to have no clue on this topic... hno:


Frances population is not growing because of high fertility-rates, but because of population-momentum. When the baby-boomers of France will move to the age of death, 80, which will happen in 15 years, then the growth of France will stop, with births equalling deaths.

Btw, the intrinstic rate of growth for a fertility-rate of 2.0 is still -0,16% p.a. if a generation lasts 30 years. The only reason France and the other countries with TFRs between 1.5 and 2.1 still have natural growth is because there were higher fertility rates in the past, resulting in fewer old people and therefore lower death-rates. When France will sustain a TFR of 2.0 over a long time, population growth will stabilize at -0,16%. If France wants to continue growing with 0.6% it would need a fertility-rate of 2.5. 

Thats the dilemma with population-forecasts stated here, they don't take into account population momentum. Parallel to the rising share of elderly people the death-rate will rise, lowering population growth. So more and more immigration is needed to sustain a particular growth rate.


----------



## Pavlemadrid (Nov 30, 2006)

brisavoine said:


> No. According to INE the population of the Madrid province grew from 6,295,011 on Jan. 1, 2009 to 6,335,780 on Jan. 1, 2010, i.e. +40,769 people, or +0.65%. That's a massive deceleration compared to the booming years.


Comunidad de Madrid, Jan. 1 2010:
6,445,499 inh. You can find it on the net.


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

Pavlemadrid said:


> Madrid province population grew aprox. 63.000 inh. during 2009, 0,97%.


But aren't Spain's cities growing through immigration only? Immigration from abroad as well as from rural areas where towns are emptying out?


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

desertpunk said:


> But aren't Spain's cities growing through immigration only? Immigration from abroad as well as from rural areas where towns are emptying out?


Cities of every country grow like that. Only a few cities in USA and Birmingham have fertility-rates that would lead to sustained natural growth. But the countryside of Spain showed still healthy growth, on the contrary American and German countryside is emptying very fast.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

Pavlemadrid said:


> Comunidad de Madrid, Jan. 1 2010:
> 6,445,499 inh. You can find it on the net.


INE, the national statistics agency tells in it's population now-cast:

2009-04-01: 6,299,111
2010-01-01: 6,335,780
2010-04-01: 6,349,901

Growth rate April 2009 - April 2010: 0.806%

Link: http://www.ine.es/jaxiBD/menu.do?L=1&divi=EPOB&his=0&type=db


----------



## Belgrader (Feb 1, 2010)

Skyline_FFM said:


> Italy's birth rates are just as poor as the birth rates of Germany. And Milan was for a long time a fast shrinking city. All the biggest cities in Germany continue to grow.
> And honestly I have nothing against some kind of people leaving Germany. Spain has no longer an "amazing" immigration. That "amazing immigration" also caused an "amazing unemployment" with "amazing slum growth". Honestly I think that immigration into social welfare systems is a bad business.
> And France's growth is due to high fertility rates with moderate immigration rates and not due to mass immigration.
> You just show to have no clue on this topic... hno:


When you have no arguments it is easiest to say "you have no clue". The only thing that I know is that Italian population grows, it is about 60 milion today, and fifty years ago it was about 50 milion and there is still a lot of immigration. Also population of France is about 63 milion, and fifty years ago it was 43 milion, and immigration is high, because French society integrates immigrants quite well. And, yes France has the highest birth rate in Europe, even bigger than Ireland, so French society is growing at very good speed. Germany now has about 82 milion people, and fifty years ago had about 80 milion, not a huge growth like France. Also I have read the other day in DW that in last few years there is even emmigration in Germany. I don't know how your cities are growing, when the population is shrinkig at high speed. You have to do something about it, because it seems that in future France will have the biggest population and thus it will be the biggest european economy.


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

Skyline_FFM said:


> I think Rhein-Main is doing well in terms of growth, just as Munich and Hamburg. But as far as I know. Rhine-Ruhr has only local points the are still growing, while it is overall shrinking. This is more due to the Ruhr region than the Rhine region. Essen fell behind Stuttgart and will also fall behind Düsseldorf. It has once been the 6th biggest city.


If we look at the growth rates of cities proper, i.e. the municipalities, instead of entire metropolitan areas, then these are the highest population growth rates in France (those growth rates are the average yearly growth rates between 1999 and 2007; they haven't changed much since the start of the financial crisis).

Towns and cities with more than 2,000 people:
1- Magny-le-Hongre (in the eastern suburbs of Paris): +14.5% per year
2- Serris (in the eastern suburbs of Paris): +14.3% per year
3- Soubise (a town on the Atlantic coast, near Rochefort): +11.1% per year
4- Bussy-Saint-Georges (in the eastern suburbs of Paris): +10.4% per year
5- Chessy (in the eastern suburbs of Paris): +9.7% per year
6- Canet (in the vineyards of Languedoc, between Montpellier and Béziers): +8.5% per year
7- Saint-Laurent-du-Maroni (in French Guiana, on the border of Suriname): +7.7% per year
8- Castelnau-d'Estrétefonds (in the suburbs of Toulouse): +7.5% per year
9- Apatou (in French Guiana, on the border of Suriname): +7.4% per year
10- Montévrain (in the eastern suburbs of Paris): +7.4% per year
11- Saint-Georges de l'Oyapock (in French Guiana, on the border of Brazil): +7.2% per year
12- Chauconin-Neufmontiers (an eastern exurb of Paris): +7.1% per year
13- Bérat (an exurb of Toulouse): +6.9% per year
14- Bailly-Romainvilliers (in the eastern suburbs of Paris): +6.8% per year
15- Gagnac-sur-Garonne (a suburb of Toulouse): +6.8% per year

In total there are 1,217 French towns and cities of more than 2,000 people that have a growth rate higher than 1.5% per year.

Cities with more than 50,000 people:
1- Courbevoie (inner suburb of Paris): +2.6% per year
2- Ajaccio (the city proper, in Corsica): +2.6% per year
3- Saint-André (in Réunion): +2.4% per year
4- Issy-les-Moulineaux (inner suburb of Paris): +2.2% per year
5- Saint-Denis (inner suburb of Paris): +2.1% per year
6- Le Tampon (in Réunion): +2.0% per year
7-Aubervilliers (inner suburb of Paris): +2.0% per year
8-Clichy (inner suburb of Paris): +2.0% per year
9- Levallois-Perret (inner suburb of Paris): +1.9% per year
10- Saint-Paul (in Réunion): +1.8% per year
11- Saint-Louis (in Réunion): +1.8% per year
12- Cayenne (the city proper, in French Guiana): +1.8% per year
13- Grasse (in the Nice urban area): 1.8% per year
14- Bondy (inner suburb of Paris): +1.6% per year
15- Toulouse (the city proper; the metro area has a higher growth rate): 1.5% per year


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

Chrissib said:


> Cities of every country grow like that. Only a few cities in USA and Birmingham have fertility-rates that would lead to sustained natural growth. But the countryside of Spain showed still healthy growth, on the contrary American and German countryside is emptying very fast.


In the US, the rural depopulation affects different areas differently. Indeed in some regions like the upper midwest and the Dakotas, this is happening very badly. In others, such as the rural South and West, populations are growing and there's some migration from the metros and cities to them. it's a very mixed story. It would be very nice to see rural Spain growing!


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

Pavlemadrid said:


> Comunidad de Madrid, Jan. 1 2010:
> 6,445,499 inh. You can find it on the net.


The only accurate figures are those of the Spanish statistical office. The other figures that circulate on the net are of little scientific value.


----------



## Skyline_FFM (May 25, 2008)

Belgrader said:


> When you have no arguments it is easiest to say "you have no clue". The only thing that I know is that Italian population grows, it is about 60 milion today, and fifty years ago it was about 50 milion and there is still a lot of immigration. Also population of France is about 63 milion, and fifty years ago it was 43 milion, and immigration is high, because French society integrates immigrants quite well. And, yes France has the highest birth rate in Europe, even bigger than Ireland, so French society is growing at very good speed. Germany now has about 82 milion people, and fifty years ago had about 80 milion, not a huge growth like France. Also I have read the other day in DW that in last few years there is even emmigration in Germany. I don't know how your cities are growing, when the population is shrinkig at high speed. You have to do something about it, because it seems that in future France will have the biggest population and thus it will be the biggest european economy.


Russias population is shrinking heavily, nevertheless Moscow has massive groth just as St. Petersburg. The reason for this is the same as in Germany: re-urbanisation trends. In Russia they are even more visible than in Germany. And surely there are cities growing in shrinking populations: The main shrinking regions are those of Eastern Germany. And some economically weaker rural regions and cities. I don't know what is so hard to understand about that. Maybe brisavoine can explain it better to you.
Germany's population is not growing, it's shrinking. We had a loss of 300k, not necessarily a bad thing. 10% of this loss is a negative balance in migrations with Turkey. This also means there are more Turkish people going back to Turkey than Turkish people moving in. This has a good point for us: Most of those who go back to Turkey are well-skilled, have good knowledge of the German language and they can deepen economic relationships.
Also the countries that "send" immigratns to Germany have shifted from Muslim countries to Asian countries. Asians almost never live from social welfare, they commit less crimes and they are mostly well-skilled or at least earn their money - often more than the native Germans. Same goes for the people who come from Eastern Europe who succeed very well. Their unemployment rates are far below average and their income is above average.
What France is experiencing is also an influx and high growth rates of Muslim populations, able to turn France into a mainly Muslim country. This can lead to less democracy, dismantling of the social welfare systems and loss of progress for women's, gay's and other rights. It also brings in a lot of conflict potential, as we often see in Paris with burning cars and tires....


----------



## GENIUS LOCI (Nov 18, 2004)

brisavoine said:


> 13- Grasse (in the Nice urban area)


Better to say in Côte d'Azur conurbation


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

desertpunk said:


> the years I lived in Buffalo


Now everything becomes clear.


----------



## bayviews (Mar 3, 2006)

desertpunk said:


> Unfortunately migration patterns within the US either follow jobs or lifestyles. That's a twin headache for the Great Lakes region because there's a trendloss of both. The lifestyles around the lakes are actually quite nice if people could get past preconceived notions. I loved the years I lived in Buffalo. But the jobs is the tough one. The trick is to find ways to leverage the resources and the education of people in that region to reclaim lost ground in manufacturing and other areas. The resilience of much of the area in the wake of the recession bodes well. If more jobs are grown there as we emerge, people will follow. Jobs and income have always mattered much more than climate or anything else.


Chicago & Toronto show that its indeed possible for Great Lakes cities to be growing, vibrant, dynamic economic & cultural centers. 

Lets hope more of the other cities in that region follow their examples!


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

brisavoine said:


> Now everything becomes clear.


Whatever that means...


----------



## GENIUS LOCI (Nov 18, 2004)

Roberto-i said:


> Skyline FFM don't mind Genius Loci , he's a leftist :gossip:


Curious how half of my beloved Italian forumers think I'm a leftist while the other half think I'm a rightist.
Actually I think the left/right classification is something stupid and quite hate it when people want to label me

Anyway, back on topic of French riots (which actually should be Off Topic), they were caused by 'gangs' of young people livin' in the 'ghettos'... they're the same thing of similar unrests happened in the past decades in USA
These youngs were prevalently second generation immigrants and their main origin were two: Northern Africa and Caraibi (from French _Territoire d'outre-mer_)
It wasn't just one ethnical group with just one religion. It was one social group

The unrests with a religious purpose are other ones (as the one for the Danish Cartoons)
The _racaille_, according Sarkozy's definition, had other purposes and it's a 'product' of French social houses policy. Infact other countries in Europe with a similar immigration and a similar number of muslims didn't have this kind of problems


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

GENIUS LOCI said:


> . Infact other countries in Europe with a similar immigration and a similar number of muslims didn't have this kind of problems


Can you give some examples?


----------



## GENIUS LOCI (Nov 18, 2004)

:?

I saw those kind of riots only in France

Or are you suggesting me that in Germany (with has a similar number of muslims) there were riots of that bigness?


----------



## Skyline_FFM (May 25, 2008)

Yes, there was. It is quite a long time ago. An aunt of mine who lives in the city of Solingen had to stay away form the windows while Muslims rioted through the streets. But okay, this is nothing compared to the numerous riots in France. Actually, IF there is violent demonstrations here in Germany or riots, it is mostly leftist of Muslims or both together. I have never seen an African, East Asian, Latino or Greek going mad in the streets.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

GENIUS LOCI said:


> :?
> 
> I saw those kind of riots only in France
> 
> Or are you suggesting me that in Germany (with has a similar number of muslims) there were riots of that bigness?


There aren't many riots here, but the young muslims commit crimes at a rate multiple times the christians do, especially violent crimes. We had the case a few weeks ago when a 16yr old killed a 19yr old in hamburg without reason.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

Belgrader said:


> Just because Germany has low birth rates and even emigration last few years, doesn't mean that the whole Europe is going down. Just look at amazing immigration in Spain, or huge population growth in France.


Spain got a huge jump in population for a many years after joining the European Union. Most of this was attributable to northern Europeans re-locating to a warmer part of the continent, was it not? Those that were interested in moving to Spain already have. Any further migration would need to be fueled by a strong economy. With 20% unemployment in Spain and a 4.6% contraction in GDP, I doubt that in migration pattern has continued.

France is a different matter and does seem to grow at a steady pace. What's behind French population growth? Is it an even split between natural increase and in migration? Are most of the immigrants non European Union migrants?

It's not likely that Europe will see the emergence of another mega city any time soon. Moscow, Istanbul, and Paris are past 10,000,000. London is also past 10,000,000 by some measures while Rhine-Ruhr is another that could be considered.


----------



## GENIUS LOCI (Nov 18, 2004)

Skyline_FFM said:


> I have never seen an African, East Asian, Latino or Greek going mad in the streets.


I have seen Chinese in Milan, for istance, in clashes against the police










http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6550725.stm


----------



## THINK€R (Sep 20, 2004)

GENIUS LOCI said:


> Curious how half of my beloved Italian forumers think I'm a leftist while the other half think I'm a rightist.


Genius! You are a "Centrist"!!!


----------



## Skyline_FFM (May 25, 2008)

isaidso said:


> Spain got a huge jump in population for a many years after joining the European Union. Most of this was attributable to northern Europeans re-locating to a warmer part of the continent, was it not? Those that were interested in moving to Spain already have. Any further migration would need to be fueled by a strong economy. With 20% unemployment in Spain and a 4.6% contraction in GDP, I doubt that in migration pattern has continued.
> 
> France is a different matter and does seem to grow at a steady pace. What's behind French population growth? Is it an even split between natural increase and in migration? Are most of the immigrants non European Union migrants?
> 
> It's not likely that Europe will see the emergence of another mega city any time soon. Moscow, Istanbul, and Paris are past 10,000,000. London is also past 10,000,000 by some measures while Rhine-Ruhr is another that could be considered.


Rhine-Ruhr is not quite a megacity. It is an agglomeration of many mid-size and small cities without a real core city. So it cannot be considered a megacity like Moscow, Paris or London.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

Skyline_FFM said:


> Rhine-Ruhr is not quite a megacity. It is an agglomeration of many mid-size and small cities without a real core city. So it cannot be considered a megacity like Moscow, Paris or London.


Yes, that's why I diplomatically phrased it as 'could be considered'. I don't really count it either although it's area is the same size as metropolitan Toronto. If Rhine-Ruhr grew at a steady clip could you see Essen growing into a core city for the region?

Do you consider London to be a mega city? Greater London is only at 7,500,000 people. If one counts outlying areas, London is sometimes counted as having upwards of 13,000,000.


----------



## Roberto-i (Jan 13, 2007)

THINK€R said:


> Genius! You are a "Centrist"!!!


a christian-democrat 
and that's his chair as moderator ^^


----------



## GENIUS LOCI (Nov 18, 2004)

THINK€R said:


> Genius! You are a "Centrist"!!!


:bash: :bash: :bash:

Nuooo, Casini nuoooooo


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

isaidso said:


> France is a different matter and does seem to grow at a steady pace. What's behind French population growth? Is it an even split between natural increase and in migration?


France's growth is essentially due to natural increase, which is a unique case in Europe. In the 4 years between 2006 and 2010, the population of France increased by 1,481,257 people. 1,150,804 (or 78%) was due to natural increase, and 330,453 (or 22%) was due to net migration. In other words four-fifth of the French population growth is due to natural growth, and one-fifth is due to immigration.


isaidso said:


> Are most of the immigrants non European Union migrants?


Between March 1999 and January 2005, the number of immigrants in France increased by 650,473. The European immigrants increased by 49,242 (i.e. 7.6% of the total increase). The Maghreban immigrants increased by 227,501 (i.e. 35% of the total increase). The sub-Saharan African immigrants increased by 188,389 (i.e. 29% of the total increase). The Turkish immigrants increased by 46,013 (i.e. 7.1% of the total increase). The Asian immigrants (excluding Turkey) increased by 93,821 (i.e. 14.4% of the total increase). The immigrants from the Americas increased by 43,656 (i.e. 6.7% of the total increase). The immigrants from Oceania increased by 850 (i.e. 0.1% of the total increase).


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

isaidso said:


> Do you consider London to be a mega city? Greater London is only at 7,500,000 people. If one counts outlying areas, London is sometimes counted as having upwards of 13,000,000.


In terms of urban area, i.e. contiguously built-up areas, London is under 10 million. It reaches 10 million only if you include exurbs not physically linked to the urban area.


----------



## GENIUS LOCI (Nov 18, 2004)

isaidso said:


> Yes, that's why I diplomatically phrased it as 'could be considered'. I don't really count it either although it's area is the same size as metropolitan Toronto. If Rhine-Ruhr grew at a steady clip could you see Essen growing into a core city for the region?


There are many problems over the definition of Megacity over all in Europe.

Anyway, about Rhein-Ruhr: it's not a single city, but surely is a single 'cluster' of cities, with many poles with the same importance

Isn't the city of Los Angeles conceptually the same thing?
Many cores which were 'merged' in a single administrative entity


----------



## Skyline_FFM (May 25, 2008)

isaidso said:


> Yes, that's why I diplomatically phrased it as 'could be considered'. I don't really count it either although it's area is the same size as metropolitan Toronto. If Rhine-Ruhr grew at a steady clip could you see Essen growing into a core city for the region?
> 
> Do you consider London to be a mega city? Greater London is only at 7,500,000 people. If one counts outlying areas, London is sometimes counted as having upwards of 13,000,000.


Rhine-Ruhr is above 10 million, so it would be a megacity if it had a core.

BTW: Some people here already said that London Metro had 18 million. Wherever they got this info from!


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

isaidso said:


> Do you consider London to be a mega city? Greater London is only at 7,500,000 people. If one counts outlying areas, London is sometimes counted as having upwards of 13,000,000.





brisavoine said:


> In terms of urban area, i.e. contiguously built-up areas, London is under 10 million. It reaches 10 million only if you include exurbs not physically linked to the urban area.


Just for the records, and based on the latest figures available:
- New York manages to pack 10 million people in 1,350 km²
- in Paris, you get 10 million people in the 2,200 km² around the city center
- in London, you get 10 million people in the 3,250 km² around the city center


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

Skyline_FFM said:


> Rhine-Ruhr is above 10 million, so it would be a megacity if it had a core.
> 
> BTW: Some people here already said that London Metro had 18 million. Wherever they got this info from!


They're talking about southeast England minus a few areas here and there.


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

GENIUS LOCI said:


> There are many problems over the definition of Megacity over all in Europe.
> 
> Anyway, about Rhein-Ruhr: it's not a single city, but surely is a single 'cluster' of cities, with many poles with the same importance
> 
> ...


The difference is that in the case of Los Angeles, you have a major primary city of nearly 4 million surrounded by bedroom suburbs that have evolved into secondary cities with some economic independence. The only other truly 'primary' city in the Greater LA metro area is Long Beach which was quite independent of LA from the start but has only a tenth the population. In the Rhein-Ruhr, you have fully independent primary and secondary cities that have grown together over time. They are significant as an aggregate but lack that big primary driver that gives the region a unified focus and urban identity. It's more megalopolis than mega-city.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

brisavoine said:


> France's growth is essentially due to natural increase, which is a unique case in Europe. In the 4 years between 2006 and 2010, the population of France increased by 1,481,257 people. 1,150,804 (or 78%) was due to natural increase, and 330,453 (or 22%) was due to net migration. In other words four-fifth of the French population growth is due to natural growth, and one-fifth is due to immigration.


It's interesting comparing France and Canada. The increase is roughly the same, but the source of growth is different. 

*Canada* 
2006 Estimate July 1st: 32,623,490
2010 Estimate July 1st: 34,157,487

Increase of 1,533,997 in 4 years. I used population estimates for both moments in time rather than census data. The Canadian census tends to under count by roughly 1,000,000 people so you either compare census to census or estimate to estimate so that you're comparing 'apples to apples'.

From 2006 to 2010, Canada added slightly more people than France, but was highly dependent on immigration. If Canada could reach the replacement fertility rate of 2.1, the Canadian population would surge due to the immigration rate.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/hp-pa/estima-eng.htm
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/ig-gi/pop-ca-eng.htm


----------



## GENIUS LOCI (Nov 18, 2004)

desertpunk said:


> The difference is that in the case of Los Angeles, you have a major primary city of nearly 4 million surrounded by bedroom suburbs that have evolved into secondary cities with some economic independence. The only other truly 'primary' city in the Greater LA metro area is Long Beach which was quite independent of LA from the start but has only a tenth the population. In the Rhein-Ruhr, you have fully independent primary and secondary cities that have grown together over time. They are significant as an aggregate but lack that big primary driver that gives the region a unified focus and urban identity. It's more megalopolis than mega-city.


I agree

What I wanted to underline is how could be Rhein-Rhur evolution (or maybe will be in the future?) if it had just one administrative level


----------



## tk780 (Jun 21, 2007)

desertpunk said:


> The difference is that in the case of Los Angeles, you have a major primary city of nearly 4 million surrounded by bedroom suburbs that have evolved into secondary cities with some economic independence. The only other truly 'primary' city in the Greater LA metro area is Long Beach which was quite independent of LA from the start but has only a tenth the population. In the Rhein-Ruhr, you have fully independent primary and secondary cities that have grown together over time. They are significant as an aggregate but lack that big primary driver that gives the region a unified focus and urban identity. It's more megalopolis than mega-city.


L.A. in itself is quite polycentric though. I think the L.A. and Rhine-Ruhr areas are very similar in the way they function.


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

El Mariachi said:


> Thank you desert for posting those pictures of Detroit to shake up the image of that city.


Canadian French- and English-language radio programmes have been having interesting things to say and reports about Detroit the past few months. Detroit's a prime place; most people knows this... :cheers:....I doubt any of us be about to hear any piece about --say-- some wealthier US place...






isaidso said:


> would equate to 1,213 people/km2. That's not high, but still dense enough to be considered 'city'.


I can't tell your rationale at putting a sample in the subjunctive while pegging two others in the past.

The meaning of the term city has greatly diminished these past few decades. All I know is, here, I needn't huff at catching an approaching bus when walking its direction instead of loungin' away beside some route-identified bus stop pole (as opposed to beside some iconic telegraph pole substitute







). There's so little all about you in most Canadian cities that their busses there creep on you out of nowhere and end up stranding you. Loads of traffic lights prove the city density where I live. _Need_ I continue?

Canada cheats by supposing its society being predominantly urbanised (I bet it's not the only country that does this).




What I reckon about (the majority of) statistics:


trainrover said:


> N Americans go to great extremes at cooking/doctoring their statistical data, I just know we're gonna get caught real bad some day...


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

GENIUS LOCI said:


> What I wanted to underline is how could be Rhein-Rhur evolution (or maybe will be in the future?) if it had just one administrative level


The Rhine-Ruhr has a declining population. Between Jan. 2005 and Jan. 2009, the Rhine-Ruhr lost 99,250 inhabitants. It reached its maximum population in Jan. 1997 with 11,574,717 inhabitants. In Jan. 2009 the population had declined to 11,408,151 inhabitants (in a territory of 10,819 km²). The population is now the same as in 1970.


----------



## Mr Bricks (May 6, 2005)

desertpunk said:


> I don't take anything that dribbles from your troll claws onto your keyboard personally. You just consistently violate forum rules with your personal attacks. That was my point.


You cant´t fool me :lol: You´re fucking furious:



desertpunk said:


> Troll.





desertpunk said:


> your reading comprehension skills are lacking


Now what did you say about personal attacks?



desertpunk said:


> Before that street grid, there was *no such thing as street planning* city streets were essentially pathways between property boundaries and nothing more. What London DID do was widen their streets so that flames would not leap so easily between buildings in the future. they also banned extreme overhangs that jutted out into the streets.


Before the 1600? What utter nonsense.



desertpunk said:


> Buffalo NY had the same planner as Washington DC. Some US cities like Boston and Santa Fe NM have a very jumbled, European street layout at their center. My point, since your reading comprehension skills are lacking, is that the ideas that shaped american cities were European, not American. The first truly American street plans were devised in the inner suburbs of Boston and Chicago in the late 1800s.


America itself is largely a European product, I thought that was obvious. However, the fact still remains that American cities are nothing like European.



desertpunk said:


> All that I said, *in addition to those tower blocks, not instead of.*


Ok. Shall be drop the tower blocks?



desertpunk said:


> How are they "architecturally superior"? You mean Lego towers and blobs?


Yeah that's exactly what I mean:nuts:

I´m talking about that fact that British cities overall are older, and therefore architecturally superior and more diverse.



desertpunk said:


> The concepts behind the urban destruction in the 1950s and '60s were borrowed from Le Corbusier.


Aha. Why are you telling me this?



desertpunk said:


> As if you knew anything about being on topic. Troll.


Whatever mate :lol:



El Mariachi said:


> yes, that still is urban. Usage of car means nothing. Milwaukee for instance has no train or fixed mass transit, but is still very much urban. The pop. density of Milwaukee is 2,399.5/km2 with an area of 251 km, and a city proper population of over 600,000. That is comparable to some European cities. You can live in dense, urban cities and still own a car.


I´m no talking statistics here. I´m talking about the appearance of cities. Houston can´t offer an "urban" lifestyle like denser, more urban and more sophisticated cities like London, Paris or NYC. These cities can, however, offer all the things Houston can. Except obvious things like weather and vibe.



El Mariachi said:


> How? A suburban office park is low-rise for the most part and cut off from the city. I am not saying these office towers are pedestrian friendly at the street, but they are still urban. And Houston has areas with skyscrapers, outside it's downtown core.


Just look:

Houston 



Copenhagen








El Mariachi said:


> Why? L.A. is a monsterous city. It's overall density isn't a far cry from that of London. It's not as dense as Paris, but it's still very much a mega city. I sense some Euro-snobbery here.


Statistics again. Look at google maps. London has a huge dense city centre, just like NYC. London is miles ahead of LA.

And please stop that "Euro-snobbery" bullshit. I thought we had left these childish accusations behind us.



El Mariachi said:


> No, these pictures show the variety of urbanity in L.A. For you to say it's not a real city is laughable. It dwarfs Copenhagen and has four million people in it's city limits.
> 
> How do the pictures support your argument. Those pictures clearly show L.A. as a mega city and the thread I posted show that it's also very urban.


They show that LA is a mega suburb. And cities like Copenhagen dwarfs LA when it comes to a densly built-up downtown core, even though LA is "monstrous".



El Mariachi said:


> did I say that Houston was more urban then Copenhagen? Yes, we all know Copenhagen has a dense, historic core. That doesn't change the fact that it's a rather small metro area. Houston dwarfs it, regardless if it's less walkable, has fewer historical structures, and more car oriented. Copenhagen is probally more similar to Milwaukee in population and metro area.


If you like suburbia and high ways, you'll find that in Copenhagen as well. No one likes a never ending sprawling metro area. It´s quite the nightmare.


----------



## Skyline_FFM (May 25, 2008)

GENIUS LOCI said:


> I agree
> 
> What I wanted to underline is how could be Rhein-Rhur evolution (or maybe will be in the future?) if it had just one administrative level


The area has now some kind of administration for the region called Metropole Rhein-Ruhr. They want to integrate the cities better and they want to increase the level of co-operation. But until now it failed since some cities simply cannot concur others. While Bonn, Cologne and Düsseldorf are still prosperous (Düsseldorf is free of any public debt), other cities like Duisburg (this one in very first place), Dortmund, Bochum or Wuppertal suffer from decreasing populations, lack of tax revenue and structural transformation doesn't have the strong effect it had in other regions like Stuttgart. 
The cities concur each other rather than co-operating.
It is still the main producer of exportation goods and has a very strong industry. But it's reputation of the Ruhr area is worse than the Ruhrgebiet actually is. This is why many people move away or do not even consider to move there. Honestly, I wouldn't want to live there either.
The Rhineland region however is much better off than the Ruhr area.


----------



## El Mariachi (Nov 1, 2007)

Mr. Bricks said:


> I´m no talking statistics here. I´m talking about the appearance of cities. Houston can´t offer an "urban" lifestyle like denser, more urban and more sophisticated cities like London, Paris or NYC. These cities can, however, offer all the things Houston can. Except obvious things like weather and vibe.


Well obviously Houston isn't as urban as Paris, London, or NYC. Nor can it match the lifestyles there. Then again, those cities are older and are the primary cities of their respective countries. And who says the residents of Houston even want to live in some crowded, overpriced city like NYC? That doesn't take away from the fact that Houston is a major city, an urban city, and larger then cities like Copenhagen. It's just urban in a different way and I am sure that it will densify over time. 





> Just look:
> 
> Houston
> 
> ...


thats kind of a silly comparison. You are comparing pictures of a CBD and a known tourist spot that is always crowded with tourists. Houston isn't a tourist city, so of course it will never match the Copenhagen waterfront. 








> Statistics again. Look at google maps. London has a huge dense city centre, just like NYC. London is miles ahead of LA.


what statistics? I am going off density. London is not miles ahead of L.A. in terms of population density. 4,761/km vs. 3,168/km city proper population density. 





> They show that LA is a mega suburb. And cities like Copenhagen dwarfs LA when it comes to a densly built-up downtown core, even though LA is "monstrous".


how can a city with 4 million people in it's city proper be considered a suburb? Thats most of the entire population of Denmark within the L.A. city limits. 

look at this entire pano and try to tell me that L.A. isn't an urban mega city.


----------



## Spikespiegel (Jul 13, 2009)

Problem is how you "measure" a city.

Americans measure cities in population numbers. For them, Houston and LA is more of a mega city than Copenhagen.

Europeans doesn't care about city population, but measure a city in it's aesthetics and cultural value. For them, Copenhagen is more of a mega city than Houston and LA.


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

European megacity:
SCROLL>>>>









Asian megacity:
SCROLL>>>>


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

^^ Those are already mega cities, so don't belong in this thread. The thread title does clearly say *New Mega Cities!* :|


----------



## Mr Bricks (May 6, 2005)

El Mariachi said:


> thats kind of a silly comparison. You are comparing pictures of a CBD and a known tourist spot that is always crowded with tourists. Houston isn't a tourist city, so of course it will never match the Copenhagen waterfront.


Now we're talking. Comparing Houston with Copenhagen is silly! 



El Mariachi said:


> what statistics? I am going off density. London is not miles ahead of L.A. in terms of population density. 4,761/km vs. 3,168/km city proper population density.


That is generally called statistics. Let me illustrate my point:

This is a far cry from downtown LA, don´t you think:







El Mariachi said:


> how can a city with 4 million people in it's city proper be considered a suburb? Thats most of the entire population of Denmark within the L.A. city limits.


You tell me, LA pulls it off quite gallantly. It doesn't have the physical appearance of a city.



El Mariachi said:


> look at this entire pano and try to tell me that L.A. isn't an urban mega city.


Compared to the panos brisavoine posted this looks like an overgrown suburb.


----------



## Skyline_FFM (May 25, 2008)

:drool: :drool:


----------



## Spikespiegel (Jul 13, 2009)

brisavoine said:


> European megacity:
> SCROLL>>>>
> http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/9996/21693651fromsacrecoeur9.jp


Taken from Sacre Coeur if I am not mistaking


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

Mr Bricks said:


> Now we're talking. Comparing Houston with Copenhagen is silly!
> .


Why are you even discussing Copenhagen here? It is not a megacity, nor is it an important city, except within a relatively unimportant country. LA and Houston are much larger, wealthier, more important and growing dramatically. Copenhagen is a museum piece. It's pretty to look at and that's about it. We're discussing megacities here, not historical districts.


----------



## GENIUS LOCI (Nov 18, 2004)

desertpunk said:


> Copenhagen is a museum piece. It's pretty to look at and that's about it.


Actually Copenhagen girls are prettier to look


----------



## Nouvellecosse (Jun 4, 2005)

Mr Bricks said:


> Now we're talking. Comparing Houston with Copenhagen is silly!
> 
> 
> That is generally called statistics. Let me illustrate my point:
> ...


Are you saying that if you showed the average European pictures of central LA and asked them if it was a picture of city or suburb, they'd actually think it was suburb?


























































































































Images from Daortíz on SSC

Honestly, I don't mean to be picture spamming, but I think it's time we put these "overgrown office park" notions to rest once and for all.


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

GENIUS LOCI said:


> Actually Copenhagen girls are prettier to look


I hope so, I'm having a selection of them sent 'round.


----------



## GENIUS LOCI (Nov 18, 2004)

I think Europeans in this thread got a bit too stereotyped vision of American cities


----------



## Anderson Geimz (Mar 29, 2008)

desertpunk said:


> Why are you even discussing Copenhagen here? It is not a megacity, nor is it an important city, except within a relatively unimportant country. LA and Houston are much larger, wealthier, more important and growing dramatically. Copenhagen is a museum piece. It's pretty to look at and that's about it. We're discussing megacities here, not historical districts.


Houston is not more important than Copenhagen...:|

Nor is it bigger in the sense that when you're standing in the middle of it and compare.
Only when you measure by ridiculous US CSA standards it is "bigger". Even then, Copenhagen-Malmo puts 3 million in the same area Houston has 2 million.


----------



## Skyline_FFM (May 25, 2008)

Sorry to say that. But this list of "most important cities" is just crap! I wouldn't take such surveys too serious.
Anyway, Houston is not more influential on a global scale than Copenhagen, since Houston is not the capital of a country. 
But both cities aren't megacities anyway, not even future ones. Although I have to say, I go with Houston's skyline - one of my favourites in North America! :cheers:


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

This list is shit, it doesn't even include Osaka, one of the most important cities in the world.


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

Anderson Geimz said:


> Houston is not more important than Copenhagen...:|
> 
> Nor is it bigger in the sense that when you're standing in the middle of it and compare.
> Only when you measure by ridiculous US CSA standards it is "bigger". Even then, Copenhagen-Malmo puts 3 million in the same area Houston has 2 million.


By your twisted logic, Lahore Pakistan is more important than Copenhagen. ( actually, that might be true ). Metro Houston's GDP is just under $400 billion. That's nearly twice the GDP of ALL of Denmark. Not even a contest. let's stay on the megacity topic.


----------



## Skyline_FFM (May 25, 2008)

Chrissib said:


> This list is shit, it doesn't even include Osaka, one of the most important cities in the world.


It IS on the list, along with Bologna, Managua and Asunción. :lol: :hilarious


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

Skyline_FFM said:


> It IS on the list, along with Bologna, Managua and Asunción. :lol: :hilarious


It is, REALLY!:lol: I have found it, after 10 minutes of intensive searching^^ Anyway, ridiculous, a 17-million-people first-world megacity along with Adelaide and Lyon:nuts:.


----------



## Nouvellecosse (Jun 4, 2005)

Wow, even Halifax is on the list! We may only be "sufficient" but 'm still pleased and astonished. 

We appear to be the only metro of under 1/2 million in North America included.


----------



## Anderson Geimz (Mar 29, 2008)

Yeah the people over at the Brookings Institute and the Loughborough University have it all wrong and a bunch of idiots on SSC know better...:|

Of course this is just one way of classifying cities (albeit the most thorough and respected in the world), you have to keep in mind what it actually researches (not population or GDP!). In that sense, it's the closest thing we have to a legitimate ranking of "importance" (again, keeping in mind the criteria!) and it's sad that some try to dismiss it that easily.

And desertpunk WTF are you talking about Lahore? You have to be the most annoying knowitall knownothing in this thread. US GDP figures are inflated and mean nothing. Denmark is several times more wealthy that Houston. Travel more...


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

Anderson Geimz said:


> Yeah the people over at the Brookings Institute and the Loughborough University have it all wrong and a bunch of idiots on SSC know better...:|
> 
> Of course this is just one way of classifying cities (albeit the most thorough and respected in the world), you have to keep in mind what it actually researches (not population or GDP!). In that sense, it's the closest thing we have to a legitimate ranking of "importance" (again, keeping in mind the criteria!) and it's sad that some try to dismiss it that easily.
> 
> And desertpunk WTF are you talking about Lahore? You have to be the most annoying knowitall knownothing in this thread. US GDP figures are inflated and mean nothing. Denmark is several times more wealthy that Houston. Travel more...


At least Houston has a higher birth rate.:lol:


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

Anderson Geimz said:


> Yeah the people over at the Brookings Institute and the Loughborough University have it all wrong and a bunch of idiots on SSC know better...:|
> 
> Of course this is just one way of classifying cities (albeit the most thorough and respected in the world), you have to keep in mind what it actually researches (not population or GDP!). In that sense, it's the closest thing we have to a legitimate ranking of "importance" (again, keeping in mind the criteria!) and it's sad that some try to dismiss it that easily.
> 
> And desertpunk WTF are you talking about Lahore? You have to be the most annoying knowitall knownothing in this thread. US GDP figures are inflated and mean nothing. Denmark is several times more wealthy that Houston. Travel more...


First the troll posts a rubbish chart, then it makes a fatuous claim about a non-megacity's wealth in a megacity thread. Anything else? Care to share your World Cup picks?


----------



## Anderson Geimz (Mar 29, 2008)

That rubbish chart is just made by the most respected institute in the field of city research. The fact that you seemingly never heard of it should mean that you have no business discussing cities -in this thread or anywhere else- in the first place.
You're the troll here, polluting the forum with uninformed crap.


----------



## Spikespiegel (Jul 13, 2009)

desertpunk said:


> Metro Houston's GDP is just under $400 billion. That's nearly twice the GDP of ALL of Denmark. Not even a contest. let's stay on the megacity topic.


According to the World Bank Denmark's GDP is $ 355 milliards.

If you think 355/400 = ½, you are pretty stupid.


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

Anderson Geimz said:


> That rubbish chart is just made by the most respected institute in the field of city research. The fact that you seemingly never heard of it should mean that you have no business discussing cities -in this thread or anywhere else- in the first place.
> You're the troll here, polluting the forum with uninformed crap.


The Eurotroll failed to provide links to verify the indices used to generate this pointless chart. Then the Eurotroll suggests that Houston, with a per capita GDP of $46,500 is not as wealthy as Copenhagen which has a per capita GDP of just over $38,000. Finally the Eurotroll insults other forumers. But that's ok, no harm done, the Euro is at $1.20 so my next "trip over" will be a plundering spree! :lol:


----------



## Anderson Geimz (Mar 29, 2008)

And yet you are the one referring to me as Eurotroll. And I'm the one insulting other members? I'm not a troll and I'm not a booster like you. I just don't like uninformed people bullying their opinions against hard legitimate research.

Seriously, if you don't know the GAWC you should GTFO of discussions about cities! That "pointless chart" needs no introduction but to the uninformed like you. Your subsequent comments only confirm you have no clue what you are talking about.

Finally, GDP is not a measure of wealth. Visit Houston and then Denmark and then get back to me which is the wealthier place...


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

^^
Please, someone put this Mr. Brick "in the brig"! Since the beginnig of the thread is doing those silly comparisions (Copenhagen x Houston x LA) for no reason.




Anderson Geimz said:


> Finally, GDP is not a measure of wealth. Visit Houston and then Denmark and then get back to me which is the wealthier place...


GDP is not a measureof wealth but a trip is? And why are you pushing this Copenhagen x Houston thing? That's not related to the thread at all.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

desertpunk said:


> The Eurotroll failed to provide links to verify the indices used to generate this pointless chart. Then the Eurotroll suggests that Houston, with a per capita GDP of $46,500 is not as wealthy as Copenhagen which has a per capita GDP of just over $38,000. Finally the Eurotroll insults other forumers. But that's ok, no harm done, the Euro is at $1.20 so my next "trip over" will be a plundering spree! :lol:


Which source have you used?

lol, Copenhagen has a GDP/capita of 51,500€, makes 61,800 USD. Copenhagen IS wealthier than Houston, it's one of the wealthiest areas on our World.

Link: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=STAT/10/25&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

Anderson Geimz said:


> And yet you are the one referring to me as Eurotroll. And I'm the one insulting other members? I'm not a troll and I'm not a booster like you. I just don't like uninformed people bullying their opinions against hard legitimate research.
> 
> Seriously, if you don't know the GAWC you should GTFO of discussions about cities! That "pointless chart" needs no introduction but to the uninformed like you. Your subsequent comments only confirm you have no clue what you are talking about.
> 
> Finally, GDP is not a measure of wealth. Visit Houston and then Denmark and then get back to me which is the wealthier place...


Information for both which was last updated by GaWC a year ago...


----------



## GENIUS LOCI (Nov 18, 2004)

I'm not a mod in this section: but, guys, this thread has become a flame since you made this OT struggle America vs Europe

Please, cut off and back on topic


----------



## El Mariachi (Nov 1, 2007)

Mr. Bricks said:


> Now we're talking. Comparing Houston with Copenhagen is silly!


yeah, silly if we are talking aesthetics but not population. Houston has more people in it's city limits then Copenhagen does in it's metro area. Houston has more people in it's metro area then Denmark has people. I don't see why you are trying to dispute that it's a major city. 





> That is generally called statistics. Let me illustrate my point:
> 
> This is a far cry from downtown LA, don´t you think:


yeah and my statistics prove that London is not much more dense then L.A. If you are going to call L.A. a suburb, then thats not saying much about London. 

And no, that isn't a far cry from L.A. Did you even look at the pano that I posted? You could find scenes from that second photo in almost any European city---even small, medium sized ones. 




> You tell me, LA pulls it off quite gallantly. It doesn't have the physical appearance of a city.


Explain to me how it doesn't have the physical appearance of a city? It is starting to sound like you have nothing to argue and are just trying to hate on L.A.----like many people on this website. 




> Compared to the panos brisavoine posted this looks like an overgrown suburb.


So L.A. is an overgrown suburb because it isn't as dense as Paris or Tokyo now? You have officially starting trolling. Paris dwarfs almost every city in Europe in appearance, including London, Amsterdam, and Berlin.


----------



## El Mariachi (Nov 1, 2007)

Anderson Geimz said:


> And yet you are the one referring to me as Eurotroll. And I'm the one insulting other members? I'm not a troll and I'm not a booster like you. I just don't like uninformed people bullying their opinions against hard legitimate research.
> 
> Seriously, if you don't know the GAWC you should GTFO of discussions about cities! That "pointless chart" needs no introduction but to the uninformed like you. Your subsequent comments only confirm you have no clue what you are talking about.
> 
> Finally, GDP is not a measure of wealth. Visit Houston and then Denmark and then get back to me which is the wealthier place...


Dude, GAWC is always being criticized on this website. Do you really place Santo Domingo and Guatemala City on a higher ranking then Philadephia and Osaka?


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

isaidso said:


> ^^ Those are already mega cities, so don't belong in this thread. The thread title does clearly say *New Mega Cities!* :|


Paris became a megacity in 2001. 

Not that people on the ground would have noticed the difference.


----------



## Skyline_FFM (May 25, 2008)

El Mariachi said:


> Dude, GAWC is always being criticized on this website. Do you really place Santo Domingo and Guatemala City on a higher ranking then Philadephia and Osaka?


Some people think that as long as something is a research form universities it automatically has to be relevant and 100% true. GAWC actually uses completely useless data and mixes it up in a messy way with other data, thinking that a reality can be put into formulas...:lol:


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

Mr Bricks said:


> Compared to the panos brisavoine posted this looks like an overgrown suburb.


Californian cities don't look like cities when looked at from above, but they do look like cities at street level. It's the same in the Silicon Valley where I used to live. Looked at from the nearby mountains, it just looks like a big green zone with more trees than houses, but at street level it certainly looks like a city. Not a central city like Paris or Tokyo, but a city nonetheless. In LA you have the buzz everywhere, day and night. You cannot compare it to the dead European suburbs.


----------



## El Mariachi (Nov 1, 2007)

Skyline_FFM said:


> Some people think that as long as something is a research form universities it automatically has to be relevant and 100% true. GAWC actually uses completely useless data and mixes it up in a messy way with other data, thinking that a reality can be put into formulas...:lol:


yeah, these lists we see are always silly in some ways. For instance, we just had an American list not to long ago that placed Milwaukee on a higher ranking then Las Vegas on the category of "fun". Sorry, I like it here but we all know thats a bunch of bull. :lol:


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

Skyline_FFM said:


> Anyway, Houston is not more influential on a global scale than Copenhagen, since Houston is not the capital of a country.


Houston sent man to the moon. Plus it has the highest GDP per capita in the world according to the calculations I made last year (higher than even the New York metro area, the SF Bay Area, and the Paris metro area, which are the other metro areas in the top four), thanks to its high-tech sector. And it's a major world capital of the oil industry. Really, people often overlook the importance of Houston. Besides, it's a much more comfortable city to live in than many cramped and old European cities (I've just returned from a trip in the non air-conditioned Paris Métro... I'd rather have a trip in an air-conditioned car in Houston any day).


----------



## El Mariachi (Nov 1, 2007)

brisavoine said:


> Californian cities don't look like cities when looked at from above, but they do look like cities at street level. It's the same in the Silicon Valley where I used to live. Looked at from the nearby mountains, it just looks like a big green zone with more trees than houses, but at street level it certainly looks like a city. Not a central city like Paris or Tokyo, but a city nonetheless. In LA you have the buzz everywhere, day and night. You cannot compare it to the dead European suburbs.


I think it's because alot of American cities are pretty lowrise (1-3 stories) outside their downtowns and are buried by canopies of trees. If this was at a different angle, most houses/buildings would probally be hidden from view.


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

Chrissib said:


> lol, Copenhagen has a GDP/capita of 51,500€, makes 61,800 USD


You have to compare metro areas with metro areas, not metro areas with central urbanizations. Therefore for Copenhagen you can't take Hovedstaden only (figure inflated by commuters), you have to take Hovedstaden and Sjaelland combined, which means the GDP per capita of the Copenhagen metro area is significantly lower than 51,500 euros per capita. You could even include Malmö in the metro area, and then the GDP per capita of the metro area would be even lower.

There is no metro area of more than 5 million people that has a GDP per capita higher than Houston. Under 5 million, maybe there are a few (like Luxembourg City or Oslo), I would have to do the calculations, but among the metro areas above 5 million I have yet to find one.


----------



## Spikespiegel (Jul 13, 2009)

brisavoine said:


> You have to compare metro areas with metro areas, not metro areas with central urbanizations. Therefore for Copenhagen you can't take Hovedstaden only (figure inflated by commuters), you have to take Hovedstaden and Sjaelland combined, which means the GDP per capita of the Copenhagen metro area is significantly lower than 51,500 euros per capita. You could even include Malmö in the metro area, and then the GDP per capita of the metro area would be even lower.
> 
> There is no metro area of more than 5 million people that has a GDP per capita higher than Houston. Under 5 million, maybe there are a few (like Luxembourg City or Oslo), I would have to do the calculations, but among the metro areas above 5 million I have yet to find one.


According to statbank.dk (officla figures), the GDP Per capita of the Capital Region (Copenhagen, all it's suburbs and Northern Sealand) is $ 60,453

According to the same source, the GDP per capita of Region Sealand is $ 37,767 (Which includes Lolland, Falster and the Western most Sealand, which have significantly lower GDP per capita that the rest of the region, and who do not commute to Copenhagen).

The population of each region are:
Capital Region: 1,684,985
Region Sealand: 820,183

The combined GDP would then be:
$ 53,025


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

brisavoine said:


> You have to compare metro areas with metro areas, not metro areas with central urbanizations. Therefore for Copenhagen you can't take Hovedstaden only (figure inflated by commuters), you have to take Hovedstaden and Sjaelland combined, which means the GDP per capita of the Copenhagen metro area is significantly lower than 51,500 euros per capita. You could even include Malmö in the metro area, and then the GDP per capita of the metro area would be even lower.
> 
> There is no metro area of more than 5 million people that has a GDP per capita higher than Houston. Under 5 million, maybe there are a few (like Luxembourg City or Oslo), I would have to do the calculations, but among the metro areas above 5 million I have yet to find one.


Would you also count Chalons-en-Champagne to Paris? Including all Sjaelland to the Kobenhavn metro area is ridiculous.


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

Spikespiegel said:


> According to the same source, the GDP per capita of Region Sealand is $ 37,767 (Which includes Lolland, Falster and the Western most Sealand, which have significantly lower GDP per capita that the rest of the region, *and who do not commute to Copenhagen*).


You must be kidding me.

According to the Danish statistical office, in the year 2008, there were 93,750 people from the neighboring region of Sjælland who worked in Hovedstaden (the Copenhagen Capital Region, a territory of only 1,973 km²/762 sq. miles, for the non-Danish forumers here). The commuters from Sjælland made up 10% of the labor force in Hovedstaden. In total 88% of the jobs located in Hovedstaden were manned by residents of Hovedstaden, while 12% of the jobs were manned by residents from other regions of Denmark. Note that these figures do not include commuters coming from Malmö in Sweden. If we include the commuters from Malmö, probably 15% or more of the jobs located in Hovedstaden are manned by people living outside of Hovedstaden. That's why the GDP per capita of Hovedstaden is statistically skewed, like the GDP per capita of all central areas that do not properly include all the suburbs and exurbs.

Also note that in Sjælland, 22.5% of the people who have a job work in Hovedstaden, while at the same time 7.8% of the jobs located in Sjælland are manned by people living in Hovedstaden. This means that the in commuting and out commuting in Sjælland is above 25%, so by US definitions Sjælland would definitely be included in the Copenhagen metro area (it would be included in the Copenhagen MSA, you don't even need to use the CSA definition).

If we take Hovedstaden and Sjælland combined, a territory of 9,246 km²/3,570 sq. miles (excluding the distant island of Bornholm), in 2008 its GDP per capita was 325,250 Danish crowns. At 2008 exchange rates that was 64,185 US dollars, but at today's exchange rates that's 52,532 US dollars. In comparison, in 2008 the GDP per capita of the Houston MSA (23,124 km²/8,928 sq. miles; 5,726,705 inhabitants) was... 70,407 US dollars. 

For comparison, in 2008 the GDP per capita of Greater Paris (12,012 km²/4,637 sq. miles; 11,709,250 inhabitants) was 47,199 euros, which was 69,446 US dollars at 2008 exchange rates, and 56,634 US dollars at today's exchange rates.


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

Chrissib said:


> Would you also count Chalons-en-Champagne to Paris? Including all Sjaelland to the Kobenhavn metro area is ridiculous.


The most distant areas of Sjælland are sparsely populated, so they do not affect the GDP per capita much, whereas the densely populated parts of Sjælland which affect the GDP per capita a lot are those closest to Copenhagen.

As for Châlons-en-Champagne, it is not only further from the center of Paris than the most distant areas of Sjælland compared to Copenhagen, but at the 2006 census only 2.7% of the residents of the Châlons-en-Champagne urban area who were in employment worked in Greater Paris. It's not comparable to Sjælland where 22.5% of the people in employment commute to the Copenhagen Capital Region for work.


----------



## FREKI (Sep 27, 2005)

opcorn:



Mr Bricks said:


> Houston


"5 million people"... "mega city"... "unmatched GDP"...


opcorn:


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

^^There are obviously a thing or two about Houston and its 400 billion dollars economy that you need to learn. Not that I particularly like Houston, but some clichés are really tiring.


----------



## KevD (Jan 14, 2007)

L.A. is big yeah but it doesn't look like a "mega" city. Not enough tall density.


----------



## paradyto (Aug 5, 2005)

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megacity


----------



## FREKI (Sep 27, 2005)

brisavoine said:


> There are obviously a thing or two about Houston and its 400 billion dollars economy that you need to learn. Not that I particularly like Houston, but some clichés are really tiring.


I haven't said a sngle thing yet... :|

But since we're on the topic of learning... Lolland, Falster, Møn, Ringsted, Næstved etc part of CPH Metro :lol:



As for all your uncredited photos... what's up with those, the same building from 3 angles shows me what?


----------



## Mr Bricks (May 6, 2005)

El Mariachi said:


> yeah, silly if we are talking aesthetics but not population. Houston has more people in it's city limits then Copenhagen does in it's metro area. Houston has more people in it's metro area then Denmark has people. I don't see why you are trying to dispute that it's a major city.


Why do you keep repeating this? I know the population figures. My original point was that there are smaller cities in Europe that feels more urban and therefore big and exciting than many "actual" mega cities in the US. I picked Copenhagen as an example. Cities like Vienna, Budapest or Brussels make cities like LA look even more suburban.



El Mariachi said:


> yeah and my statistics prove that London is not much more dense then L.A. If you are going to call L.A. a suburb, then thats not saying much about London.


**** statistics. Just take a look at how these cities actually look. Walking in central London feels just like walking in central Paris. Both cities have huge densely built up cores unlike LA. In the case of London the height of buildings and the overall density drops quickly outside the city centre while Paris has quite dense and "urban" suburbs. 



El Mariachi said:


> And no, that isn't a far cry from L.A. Did you even look at the pano that I posted? You could find scenes from that second photo in almost any European city---even small, medium sized ones.


Er...yes it is. LA looks suburban compared to this:









El Mariachi said:


> Explain to me how it doesn't have the physical appearance of a city? It is starting to sound like you have nothing to argue and are just trying to hate on L.A.----like many people on this website.


No self pitying please. I´m just stating the obvious and you are "defending" LA with ridiculous arguments. I´m sure many people like the place - maybe I would too. However, Los Angeles is suburban and has an unimpressive city centre compared to much smaller European cities like Copenhagen.



El Mariachi said:


> So L.A. is an overgrown suburb because it isn't as dense as Paris or Tokyo now?


Not just Paris or Tokyo, pretty much all larger cities in Europe make LA look suburban. It´s the nature of the city, why are you denying this?



El Mariachi said:


> You have officially starting trolling. Paris dwarfs almost every city in Europe in appearance, including London, Amsterdam, and Berlin.


How?



Nouvellecosse said:


> Are you saying that if you showed the average European pictures of central LA and asked them if it was a picture of city or suburb, they'd actually think it was suburb?


No, but considering the massive size of LA it has a tiny urban/dense/tall city centre. You can´t compare it to central London/Paris/NYC. These cities have huge dense urban cores, something LA lacks completely.



Nouvellecosse said:


> I think it's time we put these "overgrown office park" notions to rest once and for all.


I called Houston an overgrown office park.


----------



## Skyline_FFM (May 25, 2008)

It would be nice to compare CPH and Houston on a Google Earth map. But since this has already become too much of a city-vs-city thread, I suggest we go back on topic.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

Skyline_FFM said:


> It would be nice to compare CPH and Houston on a Google Earth map. But since this has already become too much of a city-vs-city thread, I suggest we go back on topic.


OK, what about Kuala Lumpur?


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

Skyline_FFM said:


> It would be nice to compare CPH and Houston on a Google Earth map.


The Copenhagen Capital Region, excluding the distant island of Bornholm, contains 1,642,909 inhabitants within 1,972 km², whereas the city of Houston alone contains 2,242,193 inhabitants within 1,501 km². Just for those who believe Houston is an empty wasteland...


----------



## Rumors (Jul 1, 2007)

Paris. :drool:


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

8.8 million people in 1,500 km².


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

brisavoine said:


> Houston sent man to the moon. Plus it has the highest GDP per capita in the world according to the calculations I made last year (higher than even the New York metro area, the SF Bay Area, and the Paris metro area, which are the other metro areas in the top four), thanks to its high-tech sector. And it's a major world capital of the oil industry. Really, people often overlook the importance of Houston. Besides, it's a much more comfortable city to live in than many cramped and old European cities (I've just returned from a trip in the non air-conditioned Paris Métro... I'd rather have a trip in an air-conditioned car in Houston any day).



Houston is more comfortable(to you) because its a newer city, and most of it was built around the car during the past few decades compared to those in Europe and elsewhere, plus invention of A/C makes life comfortable. Otherwise, much fewer people would want to live in Houston. I wouldn't consider Houston a comfortable city for humans unless you like cars, state of Texas, or humid weather.


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

LtBk said:


> Houston is more comfortable(to you) because its a newer city, and most of it was built around the car during the past few decades compared to those in Europe and elsewhere, plus invention of A/C makes life comfortable. Otherwise, much fewer people would want to live in Houston. I wouldn't consider Houston a comfortable city for humans unless you like cars, state of Texas, or humid weather.


Houston isn't a comfortable city for many people. It's hot, humid, and stormy at times, but Houston has jobs. It's the hub of the energy complex in the US. That is enough for the millions that live there. Houston doesn't exist for anyone's pleasure, it strictly business. The niceties that have been added to it along the way are just milemarkers of the city's successes, not precious identity totems. How many people that commute into the CBD daily know that the city houses art treasures or has great parks? There's a reason Houston has had no zoning code for so many decades: it didn't care about how it looks, all it cares about is the never-ending drive for MORE.


----------



## FREKI (Sep 27, 2005)

brisavoine said:


> The Copenhagen Capital Region, excluding the distant island of Bornholm, contains 1,642,909 inhabitants within 1,972 km², whereas the city of Houston alone contains 2,242,193 inhabitants within 1,501 km²


Region Hovedstaden ( "Capital Region" ) is not and has never been any kind of metro area... :|

It's simply one of the two administrative Regions eastern Denmark was divided into after we skipped the County system..

If you really want to compare the two cities you should at the least look into reality about the cities...



Skyline_FFM said:


> It would be nice to compare CPH and Houston on a Google Earth map.


At 25km


----------



## FREKI (Sep 27, 2005)

But of course the two cities differs greatly in urban style..









http://www.austinaircamera.com/files/Houston_Downtown_watermark.jpg









By me..


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

Metro Houston has 5.8 million people and has grown over 50% since 1990. It is sailing towards megacity status. Copenhagen has maybe 2 million and is growing much more slowly if at all. It will never become a megacity. That's the "reality"


----------



## FREKI (Sep 27, 2005)

^no doubt what so ever that Copenhagen will *never *be a mega city in any of our lifetimes! 

If the Øresund region even passes 5mil in my lifetime I'll be impressed!


But as other have pointed out I hope we can agree that there are more to cities than just the administrative numbers.. right..


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

FREKI said:


> ^no doubt what so ever that Copenhagen will *never *be a mega city in any of our lifetimes!
> 
> If the Øresund region even passes 5mil in my lifetime I'll be impressed!
> 
> ...


There's no doubt about that. Bigger is rarely better. Look at the list of the 50 largest cities on earth. Not very many of them are superbly habitable like Copenhagen or Vancouver. Cities like Houston will just have to grow large enough to tilt in the direction of greater density, more pedestrian-friendly planning and excellent public transport. LA has reached that tipping point as a metro of 18 million so Houston will have quite a bit more to grow, unless they get serious about some major lifestyle changes. My bet is on more growth!


----------



## GENIUS LOCI (Nov 18, 2004)

desertpunk said:


> Cities like Houston will just have to grow large enough to tilt in the direction of greater density, more pedestrian-friendly planning and excellent public transport. LA has reached that tipping point as a metro of 18 million so Houston will have quite a bit more to grow, unless they get serious about some major lifestyle changes. My bet is on more growth!


That's a good point

I noticed that many U.S. cities have a large sprawl regardless of population

Cities like Phoenix or Atlanta have an enormous sprawl and a low density even in comparison with other US cities of similar 'size'
It's very likely that over a certain level of population the cities are going to become denser (over all in central districts) instead of keeping sprawling


----------



## Roberto-i (Jan 13, 2007)

GENIUS LOCI said:


> That's a good point
> 
> I noticed that many U.S. cities have a large sprawl regardless of population
> 
> ...


BTW I noticed that that kind of sprawl (detached/semidetached houses for miles on end) is also very common in UK , Ireland and OZ , it seems an Anglo thing , go and check GoogleEarth images.


----------



## GENIUS LOCI (Nov 18, 2004)

^^
I would say even in Germany and Scandinavia

Anyway, more recently, row houses and villas became 'popular' even in Southern Europe in countries as France, Spain and Italy
Taking an overlook on most recent urbanization of Paris conurbation, for istance, you can point out most of it is kinda 'american style', way less dense that anything built previously

For istance this is a district of Rome out of the ringroad which developped mostly in last decade

http://maps.google.it/maps?hl=it&ie=UTF8&ll=41.748327,12.354469&spn=0.033939,0.086689&t=h&z=14


----------



## Roberto-i (Jan 13, 2007)

GENIUS LOCI said:


> ^^
> 
> 
> For istance this is a district of Rome out of the ringroad which developped mostly in last decade
> ...


It sucks , I'm starting to reconsider the American urban sprawl :lol:

^^


----------



## El Mariachi (Nov 1, 2007)

Mr. Bricks said:


> Why do you keep repeating this? I know the population figures. My original point was that there are smaller cities in Europe that feels more urban and therefore big and exciting than many "actual" mega cities in the US. I picked Copenhagen as an example. Cities like Vienna, Budapest or Brussels make cities like LA look even more suburban.


no, you apparently do not know the population figures or what your talking about. L.A. has around the same population as the Netherlands in it's CSA. You could combine the city proper populations of all three of those cities you listed and I believe it doesn't equal the 4 million people in L.A.'s city proper. And yet, you are going to try to tell me that they feel bigger and more exciting? 







> **** statistics. Just take a look at how these cities actually look. Walking in central London feels just like walking in central Paris. Both cities have huge densely built up cores unlike LA. In the case of London the height of buildings and the overall density drops quickly outside the city centre while Paris has quite dense and "urban" suburbs
> 
> Er...yes it is. LA looks suburban compared to this:


**** statistics? Just another example of you knowing you lost the argument. L.A. has similar population density as London does in nearly the same area. So er no, London doesn't make L.A look suburban. I've been to London. Like L.A., it has a variety of housing and densities within it's city limits. A denser core means _nothing_. I could post pictures of Manhattan or Tokyo and say that London, Amsterdam, Berlin ,etc. look "suburban". Do you have any idea how absurd that is? 

That being said, I have a hard time believing this is considered suburban in Europe.











> No self pitying please. I´m just stating the obvious and you are "defending" LA with ridiculous arguments. I´m sure many people like the place - maybe I would too. However, Los Angeles is suburban and has an unimpressive city centre compared to much smaller European cities like Copenhagen.


What ridiculous arguments? That L.A has a population density that rivals that of London? That L.A. has a city population that is like 7 times the population of Copenhagen? I fail to see whats ridiculous about what I said. Go take your hating/trolling somewhere else. 




> How?


how are you a troll? Not acknowledging facts, blatant dislike of a particular thing (L.A.), and obvious fanboyism (in this case, European cities).


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

LA itself is more urban that lot of people believe. Not as urban as most cities in Europe and elsewhere, or even older cities of the northeast and midwest, but more urban/compact than most cities of the sunbelt like Atlanta, Jacksonville, Houston, Phoenix etc. Plus they have the best urban transportation plan in works(read about Measure R and 30/10 plan).


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

LtBk said:


> LA itself is more urban that lot of people believe. Not as urban as most cities in Europe and elsewhere, or even older cities of the northeast and midwest, but more urban/compact than most cities of the sunbelt like Atlanta, Jacksonville, Houston, Phoenix etc. Plus they have the best urban transportation plan in works(read about Measure R and 30/10 plan).


LA is urban but compared to European cities, it is mostly low-rise and car oriented.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

brisavoine said:


> Paris became a megacity in 2001.
> 
> Not that people on the ground would have noticed the difference.


Exactly, this thread is for cities that might become mega cities in the future *that aren't there yet.* New Mega Cities? Perhaps, you should re-read post #1. :|


----------



## Mr Bricks (May 6, 2005)

El Mariachi said:


> no, you apparently do not know the population figures or what your talking about. L.A. has around the same population as the Netherlands in it's CSA.


What is it that you don´t get? I wasn´t talking populations figures in the first place. My point was (for the third time) that population is not the only thing that makes a city feel like a mega city. 



El Mariachi said:


> You could combine the city proper populations of all three of those cities you listed and I believe it doesn't equal the 4 million people in L.A.'s city proper. And yet, you are going to try to tell me that they feel bigger and more exciting?


As usual you´re wrong. The city proper pop. of those cities combined reach 4.4 million.



El Mariachi said:


> **** statistics? Just another example of you knowing you lost the argument.


I suggest you take an introduction course on statistics. They do lie. Often.

However, in this case that is not the point. I´m still talking about the vibe and feel at street level.



El Mariachi said:


> L.A. has similar population density as London does in nearly the same area. So er no, London doesn't make L.A look suburban.


Er yes. The built up city centre looks more like central Paris than downtown LA. 



El Mariachi said:


> I've been to London.


I doubt that.



El Mariachi said:


> Like L.A., it has a variety of housing and densities within it's city limits. A denser core means _nothing_.


Wtf?? So you disregard the fact that London has a huge densely built up core? London has a huge densely built up core (just like Paris and NYC) yet it means nothing?? :lol:



El Mariachi said:


> I could post pictures of Manhattan or Tokyo and say that London, Amsterdam, Berlin ,etc. look "suburban". Do you have any idea how absurd that is?


Manhattan? :lol: NYC is not a dense city. Manhattan is dense - and roughly the same size as central London - and equally urban, only Manhattan´s populations density is higher. Then again during the day time I believe the City of London is one of the densest places on the planet. NYC sprawls just as much as London outside its core. London and NYC are very similar in this sense. LA which was just a village when these two were mega cities has got nothing on them. Both Manhattan and central London make downtown LA look like a joke.



El Mariachi said:


> That being said, I have a hard time believing this is considered suburban in Europe.


No, but most larger cities in Europe look far more impressive, and are far densely built and urban. London, Paris, Madrid, Berlin, Barcelona etc..



El Mariachi said:


> What ridiculous arguments? That L.A has a population density that rivals that of London? That L.A. has a city population that is like 7 times the population of Copenhagen? I fail to see whats ridiculous about what I said.


That is completely irrelevant. 



El Mariachi said:


> Go take your hating/trolling somewhere else.


Feeling hurt now are we?



El Mariachi said:


> how are you a troll? Not acknowledging facts, blatant dislike of a particular thing (L.A.), and obvious fanboyism (in this case, European cities).


No. How is Paris dwarfing every other city in Europe when it comes to appearance?

And stop that troll bullshit. You know I´m right and that frustrates you.


----------



## Mr Bricks (May 6, 2005)

No difference in density here! Notice how the parking lots in LA echo the squares in London.

Los Angeles



London


----------



## Spikespiegel (Jul 13, 2009)

Mr Bricks said:


> No difference in density here! Notice how the parking lots in LA echo the squares in London.
> 
> Los Angeles
> 
> ...


London looks A LOT denser in those two images!


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

For the comparison between LA, London, and Paris, this is a thing I made some time ago. All figures as of 2007.

Los Angeles: 6,350,000 people live within 1,570 km² (the purple zone on the map).










London: 7,534,650 people live within 1,572 km²
Paris: 8,975,152 people live within 1,572 km²

Note that the Paris and London maps are at the same scale, but the LA map is at a different scale.


----------



## FREKI (Sep 27, 2005)

Mr Bricks said:


> No difference in density here! Notice how the parking lots in LA echo the squares in London.
> 
> Los Angeles
> http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/4083/22001868.jpg
> ...


Wait what... you pick the downtown core of LA and some random place in London and compares from a top down perspective..??? ( yet still don't see it? )


I've spend time in both cities, especially LA, and compared to London there is a WORLD of difference in density!

1-2 story commercial and residential lots does not compare ( urbanity wise ) to the 6-8 stories of most of London..

And with all respect to those who use's LA's core as an example of it's urbanity - how many have actually been there?

Not only is the area tiny and be be crossed on foot in a matter of minutes, but with all due respect it's not a pleasant place to walk either - where with London you can literally walk in the same very high density urbanity for something like 4 to 5 hours depending on route..


That's not to say LA doesn't have any qualities, far from it I personally very much like it's coast line, why I keep going there, but when it comes to density and urbanity it is quite honestly not a match for London ( or any other 2mil+ European city ) regardless of how many live in the area..

5min walk from the center of each.. ( not at the same scale )








www.bing.com/maps









www.bing.com/maps


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

^^The high density core in London is frankly not that extended. Compared to Paris or NYC it's much, much smaller. In Islington and Elephant & Castle you're already at the end of the dense core. London is essentially made up of low rise areas with moderate density. Not very different from LA in that respect. And the figures I gave show the density in Greater London is 4,792 inh/km² whereas the density in the same area of LA is 4,040 inh/km². Not vastly different.


----------



## FREKI (Sep 27, 2005)

^you sure love metro areas don't you 

I suggest you try one of the many maps services such as Bing or Google's - how many live 100km out is of no matter when talking urbanity and cities..

By your standard and extreme borders the entire nation of Bangladesh would be a single Metro area... :lol:


A large metro doesn't make a city big in any way it just means it's a densely populated area - what makes a city big is urbanity be it vertical or horizontal... and if a 5min walk takes you from the center to sleepy suburban area than that city is small regardless of how expansive or people filled it's administrative area is..


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

FREKI said:


> ^you sure love metro areas don't you
> 
> I suggest you try one of the many maps services such as Bing or Google's - how many live 100km out is of no matter when talking urbanity and cities..


An area of 1,570 km² does not contain places 100 km away, unless it's a straight line. In the areas I have highlighted above, the most distant places are 30 km from the core.

And for the records, I have lived in both London and LA, so I don't need to look at satellite or aerial views.


FREKI said:


> By your standard and extreme borders the entire nation of Bangladesh would be a single Metro area... :lol:


Bangladesh has a density of 1,000 km², whereas LA has a density of 4,000 km², and much more in the central areas.


FREKI said:


> A large metro doesn't make a city big in any way it just means it's a densely populated area - what makes a city big is urbanity be it vertical or horizontal... and if a 5min walk takes you from the center to sleepy suburban area than that city is small regardless of how expansive or people filled it's administrative area is..


A 5 minutes walk from downtown LA doesn't take you to sleepy suburban areas. LA is lively, urban, and bustling all the way from downtown LA to Santa Monica. And there are all sorts of active downtown areas throughout the urban area (Pasadena, Long Beach, etc.), which is why I like LA a lot, because it has lots of centers, so there are lots of things to discover everywhere.


----------



## Mr Bricks (May 6, 2005)

I was being ironic freki.



brisavoine said:


> The high density core in London is frankly not that extended. Compared to Paris or NYC it's much, much smaller.


What utter nonsense. Just measure it on google earth. London´s city centre approx. the distance between Brick Lane in the east to Hyde park corner in the west is 8.5 kilometers. The "width" of the area is 3.3 km at its widest (Regent´s Park to South Bank, or wider if you go all the way to Elephant & Castle) which is roughly the width of Manhattan at its widest. Everything within this area is a densely built up core of old stone buildings and modern office buildings. The built up environment is quite dense west of Hyde Park Corner as well (four storey Victorian apartment blocks). And even outside this core we have dense areas such as Canary Wharf and Croydon.

In Paris the building density goes on and on well into the suburbs which is why the city is much denser than both London and NYC. Not to mention Tokyo.




brisavoine said:


> In Islington and Elephant & Castle you're already at the end of the dense core. London is essentially made up of low rise areas with moderate density. Not very different from LA in that respect. And the figures I gave show the density in Greater London is 4,792 inh/km² whereas the density in the same area of LA is 4,040 inh/km². Not vastly different.


Look at freki´s post and the pics I posted. Populations density has got nothing to do with building density. Ffs London is on another planet compared to LA which has parking lots, one storey garages and bungalows in its downtown area. You are denying history and reality by claiming anything else.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

brisavoine said:


> A 5 minutes walk from downtown LA doesn't take you to sleepy suburban areas. LA is lively, urban, and bustling all the way from downtown LA to Santa Monica. And there are all sorts of active downtown areas throughout the urban area (Pasadena, Long Beach, etc.), which is why I like LA a lot, because it has lots of centers, so there are lots of things to discover everywhere.


I wouldn't consider all of LA to be urban. Many parts, like the San Fernandino Valley is mostly post WWII car centric sprawl.


----------



## FREKI (Sep 27, 2005)

Mr Bricks said:


> I was being ironic freki.


My bad for not catching it 

( certainly also had me puzzled that a guy from the Nordics of all places would have that view  )



brisavoine said:


> An area of 1,570 km² does not contain places 100 km away, unless it's a straight line. In the areas I have highlighted above, the most distant places are 30 km from the core.


Yet in small Copenhagen's case you had small islands in the middle of nowhere 120km+ away included... so who really knows with you :|


brisavoine said:


> And for the records, I have lived in both London and LA, so I don't need to look at satellite or aerial views.


Then you should certainly know what it is I'm talking about here!


brisavoine said:


> A 5 minutes walk from downtown LA doesn't take you to sleepy suburban areas


All within a mile









http://maps.google.dk/









http://maps.google.dk/









http://maps.google.dk/



brisavoine said:


> LA is lively, urban, and bustling all the way from downtown LA to Santa Monica. And there are all sorts of active downtown areas throughout the urban area (Pasadena, Long Beach, etc.), which is why I like LA a lot, because it has lots of centers, so there are lots of things to discover everywhere.


Once again you move away from city and use metro and other cities...

What we are talking about here is the City of Los Angeles, not metro, not county and not other cities in the area...


I like a lot about the Greater LA place too - but when when talking urbanity and the* city of Los Angeles* contra London, Paris or just other similar populated places.. well to be honest it's not exactly "vibrant" and "urban" that comes to my mind after my visits..


----------



## Mr Bricks (May 6, 2005)

FREKI said:


> My bad for not catching it
> 
> ( certainly also had me puzzled that a guy from the Nordics of all places would have that view  )


No worries. I´ll put a smiley next time :lol:

More of that London- like city feel:








Btw, that last quote of yours was not something I said.


----------



## FREKI (Sep 27, 2005)

Mr Bricks said:


> Btw, that last quote of yours was not something I said.


Copy paste fail from my side - my bad  ( has been fixed )


----------



## El Mariachi (Nov 1, 2007)

Mr. Bricks said:


> What is it that you don´t get? I wasn´t talking populations figures in the first place. My point was (for the third time) that population is not the only thing that makes a city feel like a mega city.


But you should be talking about population figures. Population of a metropolitan area is what defines "megacity". L.A. goes far and beyond that definition. What is it that YOU don't get? 




> As usual you´re wrong. The city proper pop. of those cities combined reach 4.4 million.


Oh no, you got me. Sorry. Those three cities _combined_ are a mere 400,000 people bigger then L.A. city proper alone. 







> I suggest you take an introduction course on statistics. They do lie. Often.
> 
> However, in this case that is not the point. I´m still talking about the vibe and feel at street level.


how do they lie? L.A. has similar density as London over a large area. If you are going to call L.A. suburban, then you might as well do the same for London. 




> Er yes. The built up city centre looks more like central Paris than downtown LA.


So what? It's a completely different city. London was founded by the Romans for christsake and developed over a thousand years. L.A. is a relatively new city and is the poster child for the dawn of the automobile. Comparing them is pointless. No kidding London will look more like central Paris. 




> I doubt that.


I was there last year. Go to the British photosection and see for yourself.





> Wtf?? So you disregard the fact that London has a huge densely built up core? London has a huge densely built up core (just like Paris and NYC) yet it means nothing?? :lol:


No, it doesn't mean anything because overall it has similar density. I never said that London wasn't a mega city. You are the one trying to argue against L.A. 




> Manhattan? :lol: *NYC is not a dense city*. Manhattan is dense - and roughly the same size as central London - and equally urban, only Manhattan´s populations density is higher. Then again during the day time I believe the City of London is one of the densest places on the planet. NYC sprawls just as much as London outside its core. London and NYC are very similar in this sense. LA which was just a village when these two were mega cities has got nothing on them. Both Manhattan and central London make downtown LA look like a joke.


You are joking right? 

Queens pop. density--21,116/sq mi (*8,152.9/km2*)
Brooklyn pop. density--36,356/sq mi (*14,037.1/km2*)
Bronx pop. density--33,116/sq mi (*12,786.2/km2*)
Staten Island pop. density--8,408/sq mi (*3,246.3/km2*)
Manhattan pop. density--70,951/sq mi (*27,394.3/km2*)










> No, but most larger cities in Europe look far more impressive, and are far densely built and urban. London, Paris, Madrid, Berlin, Barcelona etc..


no s--t. Again, most cities in Europe developed over a thousand years. The first time L.A. had 100,000 people was in 1900. It's a new city. 





> That is completely irrelevant.


whats irrelevant about facts that dispute your claims? 





> Feeling hurt now are we?


I am not hurt. But you are a troll.


----------



## El Mariachi (Nov 1, 2007)

Mr Bricks said:


> No difference in density here! Notice how the parking lots in LA echo the squares in London.
> 
> Los Angeles
> 
> ...


what is your point? You really are avoiding the statistics that L.A. has similar population density figures as London does. Nobody is trying to say that L.A. is some historic city with a beautiful core. L.A. has multiple cores throughout it's metro area (brisiavoine already mentioned some of them). It's not going to look like London or Paris. L.A. in all reality became a major city in the last century. It only passed 1 million residents in the 1930's and rapidly grew in the age of the car/highway. This differs from every city in Europe and most in the Eastern/Midwest U.S. At the turn of the century, L.A. had only 100,000 people compared to 1.6 million in Chicago. Even my own city more people then L.A. did at that time.


----------



## Anderson Geimz (Mar 29, 2008)

L.A. only has similar density figures as London because London is the greenest city in Europe (with Berlin?) having the most large parks and green spaces and a freaking Green Belt around it!


Not hard to figure out is it?


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

Anderson Geimz said:


> L.A. only has similar density figures as London because London is the greenest city in Europe (with Berlin?) having the most large parks and green spaces and a freaking Green Belt around it!


I'm sorry, but the concept of "greenest city" means nothing. It depends which areas you compare. For example, if you take Central Paris within the Périphérique, then one could say it's not a very green city, because the parks and gardens do not cover a large area, but if you take the Paris urban area, then the picture is completely different, Paris then becomes one of the greenest cities in Europe, with much more areas covered with parks and woods than either Berlin or London (think Bois de Boulogne, Forêt de Saint-Germain-en-Laye, Parc de Saint-Cloud, and so). So it's frankly a matter of which areas you compare. Of course Greater London has lots of green areas, given that it's a very big territory that encompasses many suburbs and distant areas.

As for LA, it has huge green areas within its urban area (the Santa Monica mountains, the Palos Verdes peninsula, the Mt Wilson area, etc.). With a car, they are not any further than Richmond Park in London.


----------



## Anderson Geimz (Mar 29, 2008)

Greenest city within city limits. I thought that was obvious...

Your first two sentences illustrate perfectely why this whole density comparison means nothing. London is much more dense than LA in the true meaning of the word (and not statistical juggling).


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

LA is a very poor example to use. It is a very decentralized city without a real core, it has a totally different urban form than any major European city that developed for several hundreds of years while LA itself did not boom until the last century.



> Manhattan? NYC is not a dense city. Manhattan is dense - and roughly the same size as central London - and equally urban, only Manhattan´s populations density is higher. Then again during the day time I believe the City of London is one of the densest places on the planet. NYC sprawls just as much as London outside its core. London and NYC are very similar in this sense. LA which was just a village when these two were mega cities has got nothing on them. Both Manhattan and central London make downtown LA look like a joke.


New York contains more people than London in approximately half the total area than the latter.

And both of these cities are pretty low in relative terms on the density scale compared to some of the giants in Asia regardless.


----------



## El Mariachi (Nov 1, 2007)

FREKI said:


> What we are talking about here is the City of Los Angeles, not metro, not county and not other cities in the area...
> 
> 
> I like a lot about the Greater LA place too - but when when talking urbanity and the* city of Los Angeles* contra London, Paris or just other similar populated places.. well to be honest it's not exactly "vibrant" and "urban" that comes to my mind after my visits..


We aren't trying to say that L.A. is a greater city then Paris or London. What I am saying is that L.A., overall, has similar population density to London. Therefore it _cannot_ be considered suburban, even if it is more car oriented. The photos posted don't take anything away from my argument. Most of L.A. is multi-family housing, but there are alot of single family houses---and thats one of the great things about L.A. (and most American cities in general). Urbanity doesn't always look the same---so Mr. Bricks "arguments" that L.A. looks like a suburb are silly and borderline ignorant. 

And for the record, high density doesn't automatically qualify a place as vibrant or exciting. When I was in London last year, I noticed many very dense areas (building and population-wise) that were pretty quiet and others that shut down rather early (stores, resturants, etc.). The problems with L.A. is that it's way too spread out (not helped by small public transity network), it's huge, and it's not very walkable. Unlike most cities, L.A's downtown/core isn't very touristy or particularly attractive. Nothing is really near each other (unlike London)--whether it's Dodger Stadium, Disneyland, Beverly Hills, the Getty Center, Venice Beach, or Hollywood. Not to mention that many parts of the city are pretty dangerous and are no-go zones for pedestrians. It isn't an ideal tourist city now, but I don't see how that makes it any less vibrant. There is so much going on in L.A. alone that it's pretty silly to say otherwise. It's even more silly for people to doubt that L.A. is rightfully a mega city.


----------



## Anderson Geimz (Mar 29, 2008)

Xusein said:


> LA is a very poor example to use. It is a very decentralized city without a real core, it has a totally different urban form than any major European city that developed for several hundreds of years while LA itself did not boom until the last century.


True and it's definately a megacity in its own right and a unique and cool place.



> New York contains more people than London in approximately half the total area than the latter.
> 
> And both of these cities are pretty low in relative terms on the density scale compared to some of the giants in Asia regardless.


Again, this is because of the London Green Belt. Metro NY and metro London are not far of in population and density, this because NY sprawls so much (in fact it is king sprawl of the world) it's even less dense in its outerwards regions than the English countryside.


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

Anderson Geimz said:


> Greenest city within city limits. I thought that was obvious...


Which... means absolutely nothing, and that's quite obvious too, given that cities have very different administrative limits from country to country. Claiming that London is the greenest city in Europe based on the boundaries of Greater London is really playing with numbers, since you compare a very large territory largely suburban in essence to some much smaller and more urban territories in other countries. It would be as if I claimed that London was the least green city in Europe based on the boundaries of the City of London.


Anderson Geimz said:


> London is much more dense than LA in the true meaning of the word (and not statistical juggling).


If you take a territory with the same land area in both cities (instead of administrative territories that have totally different land areas), you find a population density that is not very different in both cities. The only real difference is that the most central part of Central London (let's say the congestion charge zone) is larger than downtown LA, with higher building density (although not higher population density), but outside of this relatively limited zone London is not very different from LA in terms of building and population density. In fact, outside of the congestion charge zone I tend to find London less bustling and active than LA, because there are less shops in the streets, and they are more often closed, especially evening and Sunday, whereas in LA there is commercial activity everywhere, day and night, everyday of the week. Traffic is also much more intense in LA, day and night. You can also hear the sound of the city everywhere in LA, much more than in London outside of the congestion charge zone. It's frankly not comparable to any European suburb as some European forumers would have us believe. In LA, if I have a sudden crave at 2am for a rare German movie from the 1920s I can take my car, go to the local 24/7 rental store owned by a Persian guy only 5 minutes from my house and they'll probably have that movie. In London, at 2am, good luck!


----------



## El Mariachi (Nov 1, 2007)

Xusein said:


> _LA is a very poor example to use. It is a very decentralized city without a real core, it has a totally different urban form than any major European city that developed for several hundreds of years while LA itself did not boom until the last century._
> 
> 
> New York contains more people than London in approximately half the total area than the latter.
> ...


exactly, although I wasn't using L.A. as an example of a great urban area. L.A. is rather unique amongst great world cities and shouldn't be compared to these European cities that have developed for thousands of years. No city in Europe developed alongside the car/highway/suburb like L.A. has in the 20th century. I think it's rather amazing how quickly L.A. boomed from small town to mega city and from insignificant to arguably the most influential city in the world in terms of culture/entertainment. Same goes with a city like NYC, which grew like 6 million people in 40 some years. It's going to be the same thing with Chinese cities during our lifetimes. 

But in regards to L.A., there is so much going on there in terms of development. There will be future upgrades/extentions to public transit as the city continues to grow/densify. I find that it's one of the more exciting cities to follow simply because it's so big and how it will change in the future.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

Anderson Geimz said:


> Again, this is because of the London Green Belt. Metro NY and metro London are not far of in population and density, this because NY sprawls so much (in fact it is king sprawl of the world) it's even less dense in its outerwards regions than the English countryside.


NYC is definitely less dense as far as the metro is concerned, however I was referring to central city populations since that forumer did not mention any of the suburban areas. I don't think Mr. Bricks has ever been to New York before by that statement that he previously made.



El Mariachi said:


> But in regards to L.A., there is so much going on there in terms of development. There will be future upgrades/extentions to public transit as the city continues to grow/densify. I find that it's one of the more exciting cities to follow simply because it's so big and how it will change in the future.


Now that you mention that, I would consider LA to be different than the likes of places like Houston or Atlanta. Let's not forget that LA once had a vast streetcar network and plenty of it's suburbs pre-WWII were developed along these lines so it is not starting from scratch in several areas. Places like West LA look pretty urban. I don't expect downtown LA to ever rival Midtown Manhattan, let alone the Chicago Loop, however I still think the city is a work in progress and is beginning to densify.


----------



## El Mariachi (Nov 1, 2007)

Xusein said:


> Now that you mention that, I would consider LA to be different than the likes of places like Houston or Atlanta. Let's not forget that LA once had a vast streetcar network and plenty of it's suburbs pre-WWII were developed along these lines so it is not starting from scratch in several areas. Places like West LA look pretty urban. I don't expect downtown LA to ever rival Midtown Manhattan, let alone the Chicago Loop, however I still think the city is a work in progress and is beginning to densify.


Yeah, you are right about that. I have seen some photos of old L.A. and you had some nice looking neighorhoods served by streetcars. The city will probally see a revival of mass transit at some point in the future. They are making small steps, but gas is still so cheap that driving a car for most will always be a preferable option. The system they have now is pretty small for a city of that size, but at least they seem intent on building upon it.


----------



## Anderson Geimz (Mar 29, 2008)

brisavoine said:


> Which... means absolutely nothing, and that's quite obvious too, given that cities have very different administrative limits from country to country. Claiming that London is the greenest city in Europe based on the boundaries of Greater London is really playing with numbers, since you compare a very large territory largely suburban in essence to some much smaller and more urban territories in other countries. It would be as if I claimed that London was the least green city in Europe based on the boundaries of the City of London.


Which is exactely my point! :bash:
Seriously, how thick can you be?



> If you take a territory with the same land area in both cities (instead of administrative territories that have totally different land areas), you find a population density that is not very different in both cities. The only real difference is that the most central part of Central London (let's say the congestion charge zone) is larger than downtown LA, with higher building density (although not higher population density), but outside of this relatively limited zone London is not very different from LA in terms of building and population density. In fact, outside of the congestion charge zone I tend to find London less bustling and active than LA, because there are less shops in the streets, and they are more often closed, especially evening and Sunday, whereas in LA there is commercial activity everywhere, day and night, everyday of the week. Traffic is also much more intense in LA, day and night. You can also hear the sound of the city everywhere in LA, much more than in London outside of the congestion charge zone. It's frankly not comparable to any European suburb as some European forumers would have us believe. In LA, if I have a sudden crave at 2am for a rare German movie from the 1920s I can take my car, go to the local 24/7 rental store owned by a Persian guy only 5 minutes from my house and they'll probably have that movie. In London, at 2am, good luck!


:|


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

Anderson Geimz said:


> Which is exactely my point! :bash:
> Seriously, how thick can you be?


How trollish can you be? Oh wait, we already know! :bash:

Anyway, since you guys hijacked this thread and turned it into City vs. city bashing over LA's density, or lack thereof, let me finish the demolition job you began by giving a brief photo summary of "suburban LA":


Los Angeles city areas:



































































































Growing densification in outlying areas:



































http://www.flickr.com/photos/atwatervillage/


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

I find hard to be believe that London, a city of over 7.5 million people has less retail than a city of over 4 million.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

I guess I'll have to start a new thread for *New Mega Cities* as this one has turned into a thread about *mega cities already in existence.*


----------



## FREKI (Sep 27, 2005)

El Mariachi said:


> We aren't trying to say that L.A. is a greater city then Paris or London. What I am saying is that L.A., overall, has similar population density to London. Therefore it _cannot_ be considered suburban, even if it is more car oriented


If the majority of the population in A lives surburban contra in B where they live in dense apartment buildings surrounded by belts of parks I don't think it's unfair to question the overall population density as it will then be based on an administrative area and not the actual city..

If we look at a city like Hong Kong it is extremely dense in the urban parts, but with so many mountains and water also extremely low dense one a bigger scale.. is that a fair city to claim as low dense as say my own city that doesn't have a single building above 130m.. I don't think that is fair IMO as Hong Kong beats the shit out of us in urbanity and to be honest I think the same case goes for London contra LA..


If we were to take only the urban parts of cities, no parks, no lakes, no nothing not other than actual urban city then the figures would be very different - so while on paper things may look a certain way in reality they may very well look very different and I don't think it's an unfair point to use..


Coming from a very car centric and very sprawly suburban city myself it's certainly not because I don't see the qualities in suburban life, but when dealing with density we need to look at the actual cities and while suburbs and metro and all that has it's place it doesn't change the fact that some cities are very small regardless of huge administrative areas where other can be the other way around...


El Mariachi said:


> Mr. Bricks "arguments" that L.A. looks like a suburb are silly and borderline ignorant.


But apart from a few clusters it does so I don't see how you can find it so..

For a city with the population of LA having the "actual city" ( aka not suburbs ) be 1x1km that is not impressive and I don't see how anyone would want to defend that, especially when looking at what surrounds that small core..


I know people see this as an attack on LA but it really isn't, it's simple how the city is and that doesn't mean people can't live good lives there nor that it can't be very successful or anything, it's just not much of a city when looking at it's urbanity..




El Mariachi said:


> And for the record, high density doesn't automatically qualify a place as vibrant or exciting. When I was in London last year, I noticed many very dense areas (building and population-wise) that were pretty quiet and others that shut down rather early (stores, resturants, etc.).


It will of course depend on a lot more than just density.. if not US "projects" and Soviet "commieblocks" would be our dream homes 


But density helps a lot - as shows if we were to compare Manhattan or Downtown San Francisco with Downtown LA or Houston..

Density and the streetlife that brings a completely different feel to a place than people driving in and going straight to the shop or office from their parked car..


El Mariachi said:


> It isn't an ideal tourist city now, but I don't see how that makes it any less vibrant. There is so much going on in L.A. alone that it's pretty silly to say otherwise. It's even more silly for people to doubt that L.A. is rightfully a mega city.


As a tourist you have to take it for what it is and if you do that you can have a really good time in LA..

Personally as I have already mentioned a couple times I like going there, but that is for every other reason than the downtown area that IMHO doesn't offer anything but a few scrapers that looks better from afar anyways..


LA is what it is and I think most accept it for that - where the problem comes up is when it's claimed to be more than it actually is..
I'm personally not disputing the Mega City part as many other cities are also made up by many cities, but the claims about the city we have seen here trying to make it what it clearly isn't.. that is something I feel like responding to because that quite frankly isn't the truth..


Luckily we live in an age where all can check out Google and Bing Maps and judge for themselves - it's just rather silly it has to come so far, just like with brisavoine's attempt to use any trick in the book to lover the GDP and pop density for where I live..


The cities are what they are and if they didn't work they wouldn't be here today.. some likes one style and others another.. it really shouldn't be a problem to stick with how the world is..


----------



## FREKI (Sep 27, 2005)

El Mariachi said:


> Yeah, you are right about that. I have seen some photos of old L.A. and you had some nice looking neighorhoods served by streetcars.


I will strongly recommend all interested in old LA to see the 1953 version of 'War of the Worlds' 

Not only is it a pretty good movie despite it's age, but it has an LA I could hardly recognize in it


----------



## Mr Bricks (May 6, 2005)

El Mariachi said:


> But you should be talking about population figures. Population of a metropolitan area is what defines "megacity". L.A. goes far and beyond that definition. What is it that YOU don't get?


I never disputed the fact that LA is a mega city, it definitely is, but only by population. Compared to London it has got zero urbanity.



El Mariachi said:


> Oh no, you got me. Sorry. Those three cities _combined_ are a mere 400,000 people bigger then L.A. city proper alone.


No shit I got you. I always do.



El Mariachi said:


> how do they lie?


Should I really go into that now? There is a great book called "How to lie with statistics".



El Mariachi said:


> L.A. has similar density as London over a large area. If you are going to call L.A. suburban, then you might as well do the same for London.





El Mariachi said:


> I was there last year. Go to the British photosection and see for yourself.


Only London hardly looks suburban does it? After all you've been there so you should know. 



El Mariachi said:


> So what? It's a completely different city. London was founded by the Romans for christsake and developed over a thousand years. L.A. is a relatively new city and is the poster child for the dawn of the automobile. Comparing them is pointless. No kidding London will look more like central Paris.


Exactly.



El Mariachi said:


> No, it doesn't mean anything because overall it has similar density. I never said that London wasn't a mega city. You are the one trying to argue against L.A.


I never said LA wasn´t a mega city either, what's your point?



El Mariachi said:


> Queens pop. density--21,116/sq mi (*8,152.9/km2*)
> Brooklyn pop. density--36,356/sq mi (*14,037.1/km2*)
> Bronx pop. density--33,116/sq mi (*12,786.2/km2*)
> Staten Island pop. density--8,408/sq mi (*3,246.3/km2*)
> Manhattan pop. density--70,951/sq mi (*27,394.3/km2*)


You do realize that I meant outside Manhattan right?

The rest of NYC sprawls, and consists mostly of townhouses, apartment blocks and terraces just like London.



El Mariachi said:


> no s--t. Again, most cities in Europe developed over a thousand years. The first time L.A. had 100,000 people was in 1900. It's a new city.


So compared to most big cities LA is suburban is it not?



El Mariachi said:


> whats irrelevant about facts that dispute your claims?


Because we ARE NOT talking population figures here ffs!



El Mariachi said:


> I am not hurt. But you are a troll.


You are taking this way too seriously which is quite an accomplishment on my part.



desertpunk said:


> Los Angeles city areas:


You guys definitely have different views on what "urbanity" is. This pic looks anything but urban to me. My hometown of 600 000 people looks more impressive than this.


----------



## milquetoast (Jul 31, 2007)

*No, I think Los Angeles, more than the others, constitutes a "new" Mega-City.​ Don't make me go into its relatively "new" history,​ or how much farther, faster its influence has grown on you.​ * .​ *Now I get to defend my hometown in pictures in ... * *LOS ANGELES*​ *NEW MEGA CITY​* .​ *IMAGES HOSTED ON * *FLICKR*​ 





 .​ *WE'RE GREEN ENOUGH ..* 





 * .​ When referring to "sprawl", notice how L. A.'s sprawl is enormous but, contained!​ It's full, and when an argument against us is levied​ because we don't have enough "urban" park space,​ we use that to illustrate our "density (below)."​* .​ 





 .​ * No, New York is not the "king" of sprawl-​ not after they've spat upon that concept for decades now!​ Sorry, megacities don't "sprawl" into adjoining States. It defeats their identity.​ But, again, when referring to "megacities", you take into account​ their greater urban area. That's why you see mention of other cities and​ counties within the conglomerate, not just the city proper.​ That's what I'm doing here ​* .​ 





 .​ * We don't have a "flat" setting like the more boring London or New York-​ our entire city is surrounded by nature and is more than enough "park" for us.​ * .​ 





 .​ 





 .​ 





 *DON'T HATE US BECAUSE WE'RE BEAUTIFUL ..​* 





 .​ *ELYSIAN PARK, DOWNTOWN ACTUALLY ..* 





 .​ *We've seen the screen grabs of Google maps images of​ certain areas of our downtown, but here are the areas in their entirety .. Southeast Downtown (below)​* .​ 





 .​ *.. and Southwest Downtown* .​ 





 .​ *We're dense enough for anyone but we're not really "spread out," we're just too expansive.​ We have a multi-nodal character which doesn't encourage a strong center (below)​* .​ 





 .​ 





 .​ *.. but, again, big enough and cosmopolitan enough for anyone* .​ 





 .​ 





 .​ 





 .​ 





 .​ 





 .​ 





 .​ 





 .​ 





 .​ *We can also be quiet and contemplative ... * .​ 





 .​ 





 .​ 





 .​ *Frankly, I imagine people in Los Angeles are way too active to be truly "urbane."​ Now, to imagine the scale, here is the final pic.​* _(Yay! Now, go attack some other town before I break out the pictures​ that fucking explain why our weather is so much better than yours )​_ .​


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

And here's a nice picture of beautiful Copenhagen:










And urbane London:










And lovely Helsinki:


----------



## crazyalex (May 21, 2010)

why American thread always off topic hno:

This thread is about New mega city not city vs city


----------



## FREKI (Sep 27, 2005)

desertpunk said:


> And here's a nice picture of beautiful Copenhagen:


And here's another...









http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/9687/2lk5lac.png


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

LtBk said:


> I find hard to be believe that London, a city of over 7.5 million people has less retail than a city of over 4 million.


LA is not a city of "4 million". It has 15 million people in its urban area, 17 million in its metropolitan area. And if you take an area covering the exact same surface as Greater London (your "city" of over 7.5 million), then it has 6.35 million people living in it as I showed on the previous page, which is not vastly different from London, especially considering that it includes part of the Santa Monica mountains. And knowing how shopaholic the Americans can be, it's not very surprising that LA would have more retail outlets than European cities. In LA, in almost every neighborhood you've got little stores at the corner of the street. It's endless. You also have some downtown areas peppered everywhere.


----------



## Spikespiegel (Jul 13, 2009)

desertpunk said:


> And here's a nice picture of beautiful Copenhagen:


That picture is taken from Langebro, THE main artery between Copenhagen and Amager.

A Los Angeles equivalent would probably look like this:


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

El Mariachi said:


> They are making small steps, but gas is still so cheap that driving a car for most will always be a preferable option.


One year I was there there was a certain gas station in Long Beach that sold gas for 95 cents a gallon. :nuts:


----------



## Skyline_FFM (May 25, 2008)

crazyalex said:


> This thread is about New mega city not city vs city


:yes::yes::yes::yes::yes::yes:


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

Spikespiegel said:


> That picture is taken from Langebro, THE main artery between Copenhagen and Amager.


Oh, NOW we're splitting hairs! :lol:


----------



## Spikespiegel (Jul 13, 2009)

desertpunk said:


> Oh, NOW we're splitting hairs! :lol:


The main roads in Copenhagen are generally in a very bad state, because it's nearly impossible to close them for maintenance. Vejdirektoratet (Danish road maintenance authorities) are aware of this and have begun a complete overhaul/refurbishment of the main arteries in and around Copenhagen.

A prime example is O3, Denmark's first architect-drawn motorway.


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

FREKI said:


> If the majority of the population in A lives surburban contra in B where they live in dense apartment buildings surrounded by belts of parks I don't think it's unfair to question the overall population density


Last time I checked, the majority of people in London didn't live in dense apartment buildings. You're confusing London and Paris.


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

Mr Bricks said:


> This pic looks anything but urban to me.


It looks very urban to me. Probably that's because I actually know the place, I've walked in it, shopped in it, flirted in it, partied in it. It's quite different from just looking at satellite or aerial views in one's lounge on the other side of the world.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

brisavoine said:


> LA is not a city of "4 million". It has 15 million people in its urban area, 17 million in its metropolitan area. And if you take an area covering the exact same surface as Greater London (your "city" of over 7.5 million), then it has 6.35 million people living in it as I showed on the previous page, which is not vastly different from London, especially considering that it includes part of the Santa Monica mountains. And knowing how shopaholic the Americans can be, it's not very surprising that LA would have more retail outlets than European cities. In LA, in almost every neighborhood you've got little stores at the corner of the street. It's endless. You also have some downtown areas peppered everywhere.


I was referring to city limits, not the metropolitan area, most of it being the same boring car centric sprawl you see in other parts of the country.


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

The LA city limits encompass less area than Greater London. So saying LA is a city of 4 million and London a city of 7.5 million is comparing apples and oranges. If you want to make comparisons, compare areas of the same size.


----------



## Mr Bricks (May 6, 2005)

desertpunk said:


> And here's a nice picture of beautiful Copenhagen, And urbane London, And lovely Helsinki


What an utterly lame attempt at writing off three truly urban cities. While Freki and I have posted pics of downtown LA you post pics of non-urban and suburban places in these three cities. Says it all :lol:

I don´t understand why angelenos can´t appreciate their city for what it is i.e. a sprawling, quite suburban city surrounded by great nature, mountains and beaches? Instead you try to compare it with far older, more urban and sophisticated cities like London. I doesn't make any sense.



brisavoine said:


> It looks very urban to me. Probably that's because I actually know the place, I've walked in it, shopped in it, flirted in it, partied in it. It's quite different from just looking at satellite or aerial views in one's lounge on the other side of the world.


I don´t have to walk around in a city to know whether it is urban and densely built or not. The place lacks density, and there are faaaar to many parking lots, wasteland and two storey shacks. The architecture itself is suburban which greatly adds to the suburban look. You´re talking about atmosphere, vibe and street life (which I don´t know anything about since I haven´t visited LA). You miss the point constantly.

And please stop dragging in Paris in every discussion on SSC. It´s boring, in fact a bit like the city itself. You whine about how ugly Haussmannian buildings are and how you want the old Medieval street grid back, in short you wish Paris was a bit more like London. Still every chance you get you write London off in the most childish of ways and always highlight how Paris is superior. I mean are you jealous or plain stupid?


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

Mr Bricks said:


> What an utterly lame attempt at writing off three truly urban cities. While Freki and I have posted pics of downtown LA you post pics of non-urban and suburban places in these three cities. Says it all :lol:


What? You didn't like those pretty pictures? I really took my time selecting them because I care. 



> I don´t understand why angelenos can´t appreciate their city for what it is i.e. a sprawling, quite suburban city surrounded by great nature, mountains and beaches? Instead you try to compare it with far older, more urban and sophisticated cities like London. I doesn't make any sense.
> 
> I don´t have to walk around in a city to know whether it is urban and densely built or not. The place lacks density, and there are faaaar to many parking lots, wasteland and two storey shacks. The architecture itself is suburban which greatly adds to the suburban look. You´re talking about atmosphere, vibe and street life *(which I don´t know anything about since I haven´t visited LA)*. You miss the point constantly.


Says it all! :lol: And why do you slag off Paris? It's the ultimate example of the kind of city you crave: it has it all. Jealous much?


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

Mr Bricks said:


> You whine about how ugly Haussmannian buildings are and how you want the old Medieval street grid back, in short you wish Paris was a bit more like London.


Hm, no. You haven't really understood what I talked about in this other thread that you're referring too. Not that I should be surprised. You seem to have this bad habit of old forumers who think they already know and who read quickly the messages without trying to understand the divergent point of view of other forumers.


desertpunk said:


> And why do you slag off Paris? It's the ultimate example of the kind of city you crave: it has it all. Jealous much?


He's always been a London booster. Nothing surprising coming from Mr Bricks. In fact when I joined SSC he used to hype London much more than he does these days.


----------



## Harry (Nov 8, 2002)

brisavoine said:


> He's always been a London booster.


To be fair, there are a quite a few 'boosters' on this forum. And if you're honest, Monsieur B, you'll admit you're one of them. 

Let's just agree that London and Paris are both great and get back on topic, eh?


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

Houston booster. They pay me 5 grands a month for that. Someone has to do the job.


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

brisavoine said:


> Houston booster. They pay me 5 grands a month for that. Someone has to do the job.


Heh heh. I like Houston for what it is...but don't rightly know if i'd live there!


----------



## Blackpool88 (Nov 15, 2007)

To be honest having read the past few pages I think LA is undoubtedly a massively impressive megacity just from it's sheer area but I will also agree that the majority of its area does seem to be suburban and a little bit boring looking, and it does get suburban very close to it's core (although as has been highlighted it does contain multiple cores, maybe if it was more concentrated on a single core it would have a centre to rival London or Paris but at the moment it doesn't) LA looks great, unquestionably a megacity but it is obviously not in the same league as London and Paris due to it's age and car-based growth.


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

Mr Bricks said:


> I don´t understand why angelenos can´t appreciate their city for what it is i.e. a sprawling, quite suburban city surrounded by great nature, mountains and beaches? *Instead you try to compare it with far older, more urban and sophisticated cities like London.* I doesn't make any sense.


A city being "urban" and "sophisticated" doesn't mean anything, those are not serious descriptive term but rather vaguely defined point of views, any city is urban by definition, and "sophistication" is only an empty word full class-prejudice word which should be banned from any discussion on urbanism.

'Angelenos' can appreciate their city for whatever they want and not according to an outsider's imposed criteria, it is not your place to decide for them just like it is not their place to tell someone from Helsinki what he should think about his own city. 


More generally your comparisons here are full of a sort of northern European SSC ethnocentrism. A city cannot be understood if you use another city's logic. In a place like L.A living in a detached house is not necessarily something "suburban" for example as it would be in a place like New York or Paris (London is a bit different since it seems that most of the city fabric is made of non-detached individual houses).


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

An interesting thread, but it seems to have turned into City vs City.


----------

