# Which are the World's Super-cities, Hyper-cities and Mega-cities today



## megacity30

Super-city = A metropolitan area having a population greater than 40 million.

Hyper-city = A metropolitan area having a population between 20 million and 40 million.

Mega-city = A metropolitan area having a population between 10 million and 20 million.

The following list is for population estimates as of October, 2011.

Data Sources are Wikipedia, World-Gazetteer, various census data, Google map and satellite info, and extensive SSC blog reads.

The reader's input is requested.


Super-Metropolitan Areas / Super-Cities
__________________________________

1. Pearl River Delta Metropolitan Area / Zhusanjiao, China: *49 million*

Components: *Guangzhou*, *Shenzhen*, Dongguan, Foshan, Jiangmen, Zhongshan, Zhuhai, Huizhou, Qingyuan, Yangjiang and Zhaoqing



Hyper-Metropolitan Areas / Hyper-Cities
__________________________________


2. Keihinyo / Kanto Metropolitan Area, Japan: *36 million*

Components: *Tokyo* - *Yokohama* - Kawasaki - Prefectures of Kanagawa, Saitama, Chiba, Ibaraki, Gunma and Tochigi


3. Jabotabek - Cirangkarta, Indonesia: *33.45 million*

Components: *Jakarta* - Municipalities of Bekasi, Tangerang, Depok, South Tangerang and Bogor - Regencies of Bogor, Tangerang, Bekasi, Karawang, Purwakarta and Serang


4. New York City Metropolitan Area - Delaware Valley - Hartford, USA: *31.5 million*

Components:-

(i) New York City Metropolitan Area: *New York City* - Long Island (Counties of Nassau and Suffolk) - northern New Jersey (Counties of Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Middlesex, Hunterdon [north of Readington Township], Morris, Passaic, Somerset [north of Watchung], Sussex, Union [north of Westfield], and Warren) - Central Jersey (Trenton, Princeton) - southwestern Connecticut (Counties of Fairfield, New Haven and Litchfield) - lower Hudson Valley [Counties of Westchester, Rockland, Putnam and Bergen)

(ii) Delaware Valley: *Philadelphia*, Camden, Wilmington, Reading, Bridgeton, Millville, Vineland

(iii) Knowledge Corridor: *Hartford* - Springfield

(iv) Lehigh Valley: *Allentown* - Bethlehem - Easton - Phillipsburg

(v) Atlantic City - Hammonton


5. Greater Sao Paulo / Complexo Metropolitano Estendido de Sao Paulo, Brazil: *30 million*

Regiao Metropolitano Sao Paulo / RMSP: *Sao Paulo*, Guarulhos, Sao Bernardo do Campo, Osasco, Santo Andre

Metropolitan Components: *Campinas*, Baixada Santista (Santos), Sao Jose dos Campos, Sorocaba, Jundiai, Braganca Paulista, Piracicaba, Limeira, Rio Clara, Araras


6. Dilli (Delhi) Metropolitan Area, India: *26.15 million*

Urban Components: *Delhi*, NCR Ring 1 (Cities of Ghaziabad, Faridabad, Gurgaon - Manesar, Noida and Greater Noida, and Towns of Sonipat and Bahadurgarh)

Metropolitan Components: NCR Ring 2 (City of Meerut - Modinagar, and Towns of Rohtak, Rewari, Baghpat, Jhajjar, Bhiwadi - Dharuhera, Hapur, Bulandshahr - Sikandrabad, Sohna and Palwal)


7. Greater Manila, Philippines: *25.2 million*

Components: *Metro Manila*, contiguous and commuter towns in adjoining provinces of Cavite, Bulacan, Rizal, Laguna, Batangas and Pampanga.


8. Seoul Metropolitan Area, South Korea: *24.75 million*

Components: *Seoul*, Incheon, Gyeonggi-do Province, Cheonan, Chuncheon, Asan


9. *Shanghai*, China: *22.3 million*


10. *Mumbai* (Bombay) Metropolitan Area, India: *21.8 million*


11. *Mexico City* Metropolitan Area, Mexico: *21.2 million*


12. London commuter belt, UK: 21.1 million


13. Los Angeles - San Diego, USA: 21 million


14. Beijing, China: 20.6 million


15. Keihanshin (Osaka - Kobe - Kyoto), Japan: 20.2 million



Mega-Cities / Mega-Metropolitan Areas
_________________________________


16. Cairo / al Qahirah, Egypt: 18 million

17. Karachi, Pakistan: 17 million

18. Kolkata (Calcutta), India: 16 million

19. Tehran - Karaj, Iran: 15 million

20. Buenos Aires, Argentina: 14 million

21. Dhaka - Narayanganj, Bangladesh: 14 million

22. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: 13.6 million

23. Istanbul, Turkey: 13.3 million

24. Bangkok, Thailand: 12.8 million

25. Tianjin, China: 12.8 million

26. Chennai (Madras), India: 12.4 million

27. Moscow, Russia: 12.2 million

28. Shantou - Jieyang - Chaozhou, China: 12.2 million

29. Paris, France: 12 million

30. Chicago - Milwaukee, USA: 11.8 million

31. Bangalore, India: 11.5 million

32. Ho Chi Minh City Metropolitan Area, Vietnam: 11.4 million

33. Quanzhou - Xiamen - Zhangzhou, China: 11.1 million

34. Rhine-Ruhr, Germany: 11 million


35. Gauteng Metropolitan Area, South Africa: 10.86 million

Components:- 
Witwatersrand: *Johannesburg*, Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality (East Rand) - West Rand District Municipality
City of Tshwane (including Pretoria)
Vaal Triangle (including Vereeniging, Sasolburg etc)

36. Lahore, Pakistan: 10 million


----------



## megacity30

deleted double-post


----------



## serhat

Greater Istanbul 24 million and Istanbul population 13.250.000


----------



## lafreak84

^^ Wiki says city 8,8mil and metro 13,2mil.

Also, Paris is not 13mil, it's 11,9mil. London is not 11mil, it's 13,9mil. Moscow is not 15mil, it's 11,5mil and nobody knows how much in the metro, only known number is 8mil for Moscow Oblast. Shanghai is not 22mil, it's 23mil. You didn't even list Yangtze River Delta with 80mil, Pearl River Delta 40mil...your list is terrible.


----------



## the spliff fairy

this is the Pearl River Delta centred on Guangzhou, and made up mostly of highrises - it takes up less urban space than Atlanta, and unlike
some on your list (eg NYC-Philly), it's contiguous, and not physically separated by miles of countryside or commuter counting. Its population
is 56 million at the lowest estimate, including if you took out Hong Kong because of the border. At its highest estimate it's 120 million.
It is however, not the world's biggest city as the Yangtze River Delta, centred on Shanghai may hold more.









Thanx to Spotila for the amazing map


----------



## Messi

serhat said:


> Greater Istanbul 24 million and Istanbul population 13.250.000


where you got this number from? The whole marmara region doesn't have this population. I wonder if you can show any source.


----------



## serhat

Messi said:


> where you got this number from? The whole marmara region doesn't have this population. I wonder if you can show any source.


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


----------



## Yuri S Andrade

*São Paulo* area would be around *30 million*, on a par with New York-Philadelphia:


----------



## DiggerD21

I always thought that the order of the words are Super - Mega - Hyper, with Super being the smallest and Hyper the highest in the order.

Anyway, I miss the Randstad and the Ruhr Area in this list. 

And apart of that there is the ever appearing question: Where does a city end?


----------



## Messi

serhat said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Istanbul


Don't believe everything you read on wiki. You can check official statistics of Marmara region. Marmara's population is 23 million with Bursa, Gebze, Sakarya etc... So logically there is no way Istanbul itself has more than the Marmara region.


----------



## Yörch1

Actually hyper is more than super and mega y more than hyper... At least etymologically.


----------



## Restless

I think some of the large conurbations need looking at.

New York - Philadelphia are 130km apart.
So are Chicago - Milwaukee.

Whereas Beijing-Tianjin are only 100km apart, and have way better road, rail and subway links with each other. So you'd end up with:

Beijing - 20M
Tianjin - 13M
Langfang City - 4M

===
Ditto for a lot of the others on the list


----------



## megacity30

To the Spliff Fairy: 

(1) The PRD metropolitan area

Your posted image makes it obvious that the Pearl River Delta has presently grown into one massive contiguous urban area; thank you for the insight.

The City of Guangzhou - Foshan, on its eastern edge, is contiguous with Dongguan, which in turn is contiguous with Shenzhen to its south and Huizhou to its east. On its south-western and southern edges, the City is contiguous with Jiangmen and Zhongshan, which in turn are connected to Zhuhai. I agree Xianggang (Hong Kong) and Macau shouldn't be included because of their controlled borders. 

Last year, the Hukou system was abolished in Guangdong province, making inter-city work and residence possible. 

I don't see the city of Zhaoqing in the image; based on its considerable distance from Foshan and miles of countryside in between, it would seem we cannot include Zhaoqing in this metropolitan area.

Please let me know how you arrived at a metropolitan population of 120 million or even 56 million not counting Hong Kong, Zhaoqing and Macau?


(2) New York City - Philadelphia - New Jersey - southwestern Connecticut - Long Island - Lower Hudson Valley - Wilmington

This metropolitan region is completely inter-connected by continuous suburban sprawl and high commuting. Towns like Trenton and Princeton are the mid-point between New York City and Philadelphia, and both towns are linked by contiguous urban sprawl along the I-95 and beyond with Philadelphia and New York City respectively. The same commuter trains of NJ Transit connect both cities with daily commuters.
Yes, there is a lot of countryside as well in this metropolitan region, but that's how all American cities have grown. American sprawl is designed to be less dense, than its counterparts in Asia, for example.

I have included Atlantic City, NJ, and Allentown - Bethlehem, PA, in this region. 
They are both, however, not contiguous - there's around 15 km of countryside along the I-78, I-476, Atlantic City Expwy and the Garden State Expwy.

Without them, the population is around 28 million.


(3) The YRD Megalopolis:
There is a controlled Hukou system in all cities of the Yangtze River Delta region. Last year, Jiaxing and Cixi relaxed the criteria for qualified migrants. However, rural or less qualified migrants still lead a marginalized life without social benefits. Inter-city commutes, i.e. living in one city and working in another, is an exception. Each city is still a metropolitan area only in itself, even though satellite images show their urban peripheries are merging. 
Until the Shanghai Municipality and the provinces of Zhejiang and Jiangsu amend the Hukou system along the lines of the Dongguan province, this region will remain a megalopolis at best, and definitely not one metropolitan area.


----------



## megacity30

lafreak84 said:


> ^^ Wiki says city 8,8mil and metro 13,2mil.
> 
> Also, Paris is not 13mil, it's 11,9mil. London is not 11mil, it's 13,9mil. Moscow is not 15mil, it's 11,5mil and nobody knows how much in the metro, only known number is 8mil for Moscow Oblast. Shanghai is not 22mil, it's 23mil. You didn't even list Yangtze River Delta with 80mil, Pearl River Delta 40mil...your list is terrible.


(1) London and Paris:

You're correct about the London commuter belt having population estimates nearing 14 million. In the case of Paris, by excluding its multiple exurban hamlets, and restricting our numbers to its suburbs, we reach 12 million people.

Thank you for pointing it out.
I have made the necessary changes to the list.

(2) Moscow:

The whole Oblast is definitely not one urban area. However, I have included the population of the towns adjoining the city, such as Podolsk, Lobnya, Shchyolkova, Pushkino and numerous other towns.


----------



## megacity30

*YRD is not yet one metropolitan area*



lafreak84 said:


> ^^ Wiki says city 8,8mil and metro 13,2mil.
> 
> Also, Paris is not 13mil, it's 11,9mil. London is not 11mil, it's 13,9mil. Moscow is not 15mil, it's 11,5mil and nobody knows how much in the metro, only known number is 8mil for Moscow Oblast. Shanghai is not 22mil, it's 23mil. You didn't even list Yangtze River Delta with 80mil, Pearl River Delta 40mil...your list is terrible.


(1) The YRD Megalopolis:

There is a controlled Hukou system in all cities of the Yangtze River Delta region. Last year, Jiaxing and Cixi relaxed the criteria for qualified migrants. However, rural or less qualified migrants still lead a marginalized life without social benefits. Inter-city commutes, i.e. living in one city and working in another, is an exception. Each city is still a metropolitan area only in itself, even though satellite images show their urban peripheries are merging. 
Until the Shanghai Municipality and the provinces of Zhejiang and Jiangsu amend the Hukou system along the lines of the Dongguan province, this region will remain a megalopolis at best, and definitely not one metropolitan area. 

(2) I am working on obtaining the metropolitan population of the Pearl River Delta metropolitan area centred on Guangzhou. I wouldn't include Xianggang (Hong Kong) and Macau because of their controlled borders with the mainland, and probably exclude Zhaoqing.


----------



## megacity30

*Magnitude-denoting prefixes; the Rhine-Ruhr*



DiggerD21 said:


> I always thought that the order of the words are Super - Mega - Hyper, with Super being the smallest and Hyper the highest in the order.
> 
> Anyway, I miss the Randstad and the Ruhr Area in this list.
> 
> And apart of that there is the ever appearing question: Where does a city end?


(1) Magnitude-denoting prefixes: 

Unlike data representation in computer science or metrology, a metropolitan area having 5 million people is not called "kilo"-city; instead it's called a metro-city. Similarly, a metropolitan area with 20 million people and 40 million people are not called a "giga"-city and a "peta"-city respectively. A hyper-city is relatively a new term because the world didn't have metropolitan areas with over 20 million people until a few decades ago. However, urban demographers have coined this term for this relatively new phenomenon.
Similarly, the word "super" denotes superlative, as in the highest category for something.

Maybe someday in the near future, we'll have metropolitan areas having over 80 million people. Then a new term will have to be coined.


(2) The Rhine-Ruhr Metropolitan Region:

Yes, this thread will be built upon reader input. Rhine Ruhr should be considered as one metropolitan area having over 10 million people- a contiguous urban area stretching from Bonn to Hamm with daily commuter flow. I'll include it now.

Randstad, of course, has about 7.2 million people even if it were considered as one metropolitan area, and so does not meet the minimum requirement for a mega-city (10 million).


----------



## megacity30

Restless said:


> I think some of the large conurbations need looking at.
> 
> New York - Philadelphia are 130km apart.
> So are Chicago - Milwaukee.
> 
> Whereas Beijing-Tianjin are only 100km apart, and have way better road, rail and subway links with each other. So you'd end up with:
> 
> Beijing - 20M
> Tianjin - 13M
> Langfang City - 4M
> 
> ===
> Ditto for a lot of the others on the list


There is a controlled Hukou system in Beijing and Tianjin. Rural or less qualified migrants still lead a marginalized life without social benefits. Inter-city commutes, i.e. living in one city and working in another, are an exception. Each city is still a metropolitan area only in itself, even though satellite images show their urban peripheries are merging.

Until Beijing and Tianjin amend the Hukou system along the lines of the Dongguan province, this region will remain a megalopolis at best, and definitely not one metropolitan area.


----------



## poshbakerloo

*The list is a little strange...*

Some cities seem to be urban areas...New York-Philly (do they even join? no.)

Whilst some are city only e.g. Kolkata, India

Its not much of a fair test if you include the metro area of some but not with other...


----------



## megacity30

Yuri S Andrade said:


> *São Paulo* area would be around *30 million*, on a par with New York-Philadelphia:


^^ That's true- the Extended Metropolitan Area of Sao Paulo today has around 30 million. 

I have excluded the population of Allentown - Bethlehem and Atlantic City from the New York City - Philadelphia metropolitan area, bringing its population to 28 million.


----------



## megacity30

poshbakerloo said:


> *The list is a little strange...*
> 
> Some cities seem to be urban areas...New York-Philly (do they even join? no.)
> 
> Whilst some are city only e.g. Kolkata, India
> 
> Its not much of a fair test if you include the metro area of some but not with other...


(1) As mentioned in an earlier post, the "New York City - Philadelphia - New Jersey - southwestern Connecticut - Long Island - Lower Hudson Valley - Wilmington" metropolitan region is completely inter-connected by continuous suburban sprawl and high commuting. 

Towns like Trenton and Princeton are the mid-point between New York City and Philadelphia, and both towns are linked by contiguous urban sprawl along the I-95 and beyond with Philadelphia and New York City respectively. The same commuter trains of NJ Transit connect both cities with daily commuters.

Yes, there is a lot of countryside as well in this metropolitan region, but that's how all American cities have grown. American sprawl is designed to be less dense, than its counterparts in Asia, for example.

I had earlier included Atlantic City, NJ, and Allentown - Bethlehem, PA, in this region. 
They are both, however, not contiguous - there's around 15 km of countryside along the I-78, I-476, Atlantic City Expwy and the Garden State Expwy.

Without them, the population is around 28 million.


(2) Kolkata metropolitan area:

Although the urban area numbers for 2011 Census of India haven't yet been released, the population for the officially designated urban area is expected to be around 16 million. 

People in the neighboring towns of Chakdaha, Pandua, Ranaghat, and Duttapukur and Baruipur commute daily to Kolkata for socio-economic reasons, but none of these towns are contiguous with the urban area.
If they were included, the metropolitan area will be close to 17 million people.

(3) None of the population figures used in this list are for the city only. By the time an urban area exceeds a population of 10 million, it has always grown beyond the city's official administrative boundary.

The City of Kolkata has only 4.5 million people. Its city limits haven't changed in over 200 years while its urban area has grown manifold.


----------



## Manila-X

Xusein said:


> I am sure we have had this kind of topic over and over and over again.
> 
> I have to laugh at the "Great Lakes" megalopolis though, how are places like Minneapolis and Kansas City in the same region as Toronto or Pittsburgh. :shifty:


Minneapolis' position is debatable since it does not share a common link with Chicago nor is part of the city's sphere of influence.

Kansas City on the other hand has a busy freight train route with Chicago and agricultural trade between the two are active.


----------



## spxy2

Yuri S Andrade said:


> ^^
> No, I don't. And I for one see an huge difference between a low-density America suburb and a dense rural area in Europe or Asia. Those people living in Princeton or Plainsboro: what are their jobs? Do they grow maize or raise cattle? I don't think so.


eh, you think people living in villages in europe do that?
slaps head in disbelief...


----------



## tk780

Yuri S Andrade said:


> ^^
> Why New York CSA is generous? US urban areas are much less dense, so it's obvious their metro areas would be much larger.
> 
> Although people are disputing this New York-Philadelphia area, it's consistent with the thread's list. Checking the area in GE, we can see there's an almost full conurbation between Philadelphia and New York urban areas, along Trenton and Princeton.


As has been said before, the US Census Bureau actually has pretty clear criteria for establishing urban areas, and these already take into account the low-density nature of American suburbia (requiring a minimum density of a mere 500 people per square mile and allowing for gaps in the urban development of up to 2 miles, for instance). By the Census Bureau's definition, the New York urbanized area has a population of about 18 million. If a supposed New York-Philadelphia urban area fit those criteria, it would already be considered a single urbanized area and, by extension, metropolitan area and CSA. 

CSAs are consolidated statistical areas made up of several _independent _metropolitan areas. They reflect a level of commuting ties far below MSAs or the threshold commonly used in other countries. CSAs are not considered or referred to as metropolitan areas by any U.S. authority and were never meant to be used as the main indicator of a city's size or sphere of influence. It doesn't make sense to compare CSAs with metro areas and urban areas, because they all measure completely different things.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade

^^
They use indeed very strict criteria for definition of their CSAs, MSAs and urban areas. However, in the two former there are some unexplicable flaws: why Bridgeport and New York are set as different urban areas while we clearly have one single urban spot? Same question for Los Angeles and San Bernardino. MSAs also show flaws like those, that's why CSAs are used more and more as synonimous of metropolitan area in the US.

Said that, the thread's proposal, the way I see it, is to show a broader definition of metropolitan area and using such criteria, it makes sense to bracket New York and Philadelphia together. And it's important to stress that there's no empty space between New York and Philadelphia sprawls. They clearly form a single urban spot.




spxy2 said:


> eh, you think people living in villages in europe do that?
> slaps head in disbelief...


Probably the fields around them grow by themselves. The gigantic food production in Europe is no one's fault. In any case, I highly doubt the density in the image I've posted is under 500 people/km². I'd like to know this European rural areas with the same density.


----------



## Jonesy55

Yuri S Andrade said:


> ^^
> 
> Probably the fields around them grow by themselves.


No, but farming in much of Western Europe is capital rather than labour intensive, there is a sprinkling of farmers in those rural areas around London for example but they are far outnumbered by people who live in the villages and countryside there but commute to London for work or are otherwise connected to the urban area economy.


----------



## PadArch

Yuri S Andrade said:


> Probably the fields around them grow by themselves. The gigantic food production in Europe is no one's fault. In any case, I highly doubt the density in the image I've posted is under 500 people/km². I'd like to know this European rural areas with the same density.


well the overall density of england is 395/km2 (comprising over 130000km), but all the counties surrounding london are above 500. Surrey is 678 for instance. Holland in the netherlands comprises an overall density of 1105/km2, covering an area of, 5488 km2, and the netherlands as a whole is slightly denser than england (402.2)

only a tiny % of people in western europe work in agriculture. for instance, in the UK, only 1.52% of the workforce are in the farming industry. almost everyone else is commuting into towns to work.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade

PadArch said:


> well the overall density of england is 395/km2 (comprising over 130000km), but all the counties surrounding london are above 500. Surrey is 678 for instance. Holland in the netherlands comprises an overall density of 1105/km2, covering an area of, 5488 km2, and the netherlands as a whole is slightly denser than england (402.2)


Very well. Now let's split the urban and the rural areas of Surrey. What's the density of urban Surrey and what's the density of rural Surrey? It's obvious that the low density American suburbs are much more dense than any rural area in Europe.



PadArch said:


> only a tiny % of people in western europe work in agriculture. for instance, in the UK, only 1.52% of the workforce are in the farming industry. almost everyone else is commuting into towns to work.


Ok, 1.52% of UK labour force is in farming. But what's the % of people working in farming in the British villages. Much higher, I suppose.



Jonesy55 said:


> No, but farming in much of Western Europe is capital rather than labour intensive, there is a sprinkling of farmers in those rural areas around London for example but they are far outnumbered by people who live in the villages and countryside there but commute to London for work or are otherwise connected to the urban area economy.


In London, there is the Green Belt thing, so the villages pretty much became suburbs separated from the main urban core. In other parts, however, there's a clearly distinction between urban/suburban and rural environments.


----------



## kamranali

The greater Lahore is really thickly populated. I beleive that within the hundred km radius there live far more than 20 million people.


----------



## julesstoop

The overall population density of the Netherlands is actually closer to 500 inh/sq.km. The number you state (402) is probably including IJsselmeer and Waddenzee (water).


----------



## Jonesy55

Yuri S Andrade said:


> In London, there is the Green Belt thing, so the villages pretty much became suburbs separated from the main urban core. In other parts, however, there's a clearly distinction between urban/suburban and rural environments.


Hmmm, I don't know, the UK (and especially England) is a small, densely populated country. Most rural places are commutable to at least one big city and certainly to nearby mid-sized towns. Unless you are talking about the remotest areas of Northern Scotland, West Wales etc then you will find many inhabitants of villages and even individual rural houses are commuting to towns and cities.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade

^^
Ok, Jonesy but what's the point? European fields are urban or American suburbs are rural?

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

Back to the thread, as you're talking about a broader defintion of metropolitan areas, I believe London's should be at least like this:



Population: 15,578,000; Area: 16,655 km².


----------



## Jonesy55

I'm not sure, what was the point?

Yes London should be at least that, maybe not East Kent but with some other areas to the west and parts of Sussex added.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade

^^
People were claiming the suburbs between New York and Philadelphia were rural, which is obviously not the case.

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

About London, I decided to stick on ceremonial conties as it's easy to collect the data. Of course, it's subjected to adjustments following other boundary lines. Adding East and West Sussex, for instance, we'd have *17,152,000* people in 20,438 km².


----------



## the spliff fairy

Yuri, to repost,

the people in the pink areas are not rural village folk, neither do they work in farming. These are dense urban towns and developments
with a huge amount of commuting, the vast majority built after the war. This dense peppering stretches all the way north to Leeds.
This is also the same for much of Western Europe which is the largest band of urbanity in the world:










case in point, a town like this which makes a small smudge on the map, pop 60,000 looks like this:










a village (27,000):

















This is nothing but suburbia, the difference is that the protected 'green belts' that surround English cities make it hard to build vast tracts of it surrounding the cities, instead it becomes a dense peppering of dense communities all over the land. This is why much of England the country has a higher urban population density than many US cities, its just too crowded - not just in the numbers of people but the land protection laws that clump them together.

Adversely the jury is out on whether these land protection laws have genuinely saved green 'belts' or only created a mass of deteriorating urban-rural fabric, enmeshed on a far larger scale than natural sprawl.


----------



## megacity30

*The London commuter belt*



the spliff fairy said:


> Yuri, to repost,
> 
> the people in the pink areas are not rural village folk, neither do they work in farming. These are dense urban towns and developments
> with a huge amount of commuting, the vast majority built after the war. This dense peppering stretches all the way north to Leeds.
> This is also the same for much of Western Europe which is the largest band of urbanity in the world:
> 
> case in point, a town like this which makes a small smudge on the map, pop 60,000 looks like this:
> 
> a village (27,000):
> 
> This is nothing but suburbia, the difference is that the protected 'green belts' that surround English cities make it hard to build vast tracts of it surrounding the cities, instead it becomes a dense peppering of dense communities all over the land. This is why much of England the country has a higher urban population density than many US cities, its just too crowded - not just in the numbers of people but the land protection laws that clump them together.
> 
> Adversely the jury is out on whether these land protection laws have genuinely saved green 'belts' or only created a mass of deteriorating urban-rural fabric, enmeshed on a far larger scale than natural sprawl.


This explains why the London commuter belt has such a low overall population density even though all the individual towns and hamlets are truly urban and dense. 

Does anyone know what the true population of the London commuter belt is today?


----------



## megacity30

*Lahore metropolitan region*



kamranali said:


> The greater Lahore is really thickly populated. I beleive that within the hundred km radius there live far more than 20 million people.


Can you please provide us a reliable population estimate of the Lahore metropolitan region as of October 2011, along with the source of info?


----------



## megacity30

*Emerging Mega-cities*

I'm presently investigating whether the following metropolitan areas are now mega-cities:- 

Tianjin, China,
Bangalore, India
Lahore, Pakistan

I'd be grateful if anyone has latest data on this.

Also, do we have any other mega-city candidates around the world?


----------



## Jonesy55

megacity30 said:


> This explains why the London commuter belt has such a low overall population density even though all the individual towns and hamlets are truly urban and dense.
> 
> Does anyone know what the true population of the London commuter belt is today?


It depends how you define it, I've known people who have commuted each day from here to Heathrow airport, 250km away, but most people would think that is crazy.


----------



## spotila

Shrewsbury to Heathrow daily?! That's madness - a 500km round trip each day?


----------



## Jonesy55

Indeed, this guy did it for a couple of years!


----------



## alheaine

^^
whoa :eek2:..manila is densely populated as compared to these chinese cities.. hno:


----------



## Manila-X

alheaine said:


> ^^
> whoa :eek2:..manila is densely populated as compared to these chinese cities.. hno:


It is one of the densest cities in the world though I find HK more dense.

Metro Manila's high density is in the city centre such as Manila, Makati, etc. But the suburbs are low similar to North American ones though some areas have mid to high-rise developments happening.


----------



## :jax:

While this thread fits well into the SSC idiom of "mine is bigger than yours", some tenuous transport link does not a city make. Cities that have grown up from a village to a town obviously are cities, as are cities that have engulfed the neighbouring towns. Cities that are growing together are the contentious ones. I know people in SSC and outside have spent effort in defining what is continuous, useful if you want to define super-mega-hyper-whatever-cities in an objective way. However to my mind it is not enough.

Take Pearl River City, it does not exist yet as I see it, but in a few years it will. Foshan-Guangzhou sure, and at a stretch Chang'an district of Dongguan with Shenzhen, but Dongguan is hardly connected with itself. Essentially if you are in Shenzhen close to Dongguan and want to go to Dongguan by public transport, you have to go back to the China-Hong Kong border to get ready transport to the different districts in Dongguan there, and you can expect to spend as much time to get to Guangzhou from neighbouring Dongguan as you would from Shenzhen/Hong Kong. Functionally Dongguan is a factory town for Guangzhou and Shenzhen rather than a full city in its own right. And the nearest points in Shenzhen and Guangzhou may be close, but they are also the extreme periphery of the respective cities, and there are no other crosslinks like Foshan-Dongguan either.

In five years when the transport infrastructure is there, and especially in ten when the population patterns have adjusted to the new structure, then I will consider Pearl River City to be one city, and a very big one (whatever the term) at that.


----------



## Manila-X

If it wasn't for HK, The Pearl River Delta would not be as it is today and I doubt that Shenzhen would grow this big.


----------



## :jax:

Similarly with Beijing-Tianjin. I agree, somewhat, that hukou rules precludes looking at them as one city, but it isn't more a restriction than for instance Copenhagen-Malmö would have in being one city or Vienna-Bratislava(-Györ). The former would never be a city based on continuity rules, the channel between Sweden and Denmark is unlikely to be urbanised, but while I don't have actual figures to back me up the commute between Copenhagen and Malmö is relatively more widespread, even through one bridge, than the commute between Beijing and Tianjin. 

In this case the public transport link is excellent, half an hour high-speed train from Beijing to Tianjin, but to that you have to add another hour or two to get to the station in Beijng and another hour in Tianjin, leaving you back to the time it would take you by car. The area between the cities is sparsely developed, and the property prices in that region of Beijing has fallen recently as well. The two cities are likely to grow closer, but they are two cities.


----------



## :jax:

Manila-X said:


> If it wasn't for HK, The Pearl River Delta would not be as it is today and I doubt that Shenzhen would grow this big.


That is almost certainly true, and Shenzhen must be the world's largest fishing village, but Hong Kong was there, as was the economic zone, and Shenzhen is now bigger than Hong Kong.

Macao hasn't had quite the same influence on the other side of the river/delta, but that too is getting connected with Guangzhou.


----------



## Manila-X

:jax: said:


> That is almost certainly true, and Shenzhen must be the world's largest fishing village, but Hong Kong was there, as was the economic zone, and Shenzhen is now bigger than Hong Kong.
> 
> Macao hasn't had quite the same influence on the other side of the river/delta, but that too is getting connected with Guangzhou.


A major economic zone was established within The Pearl River Delta due to HK.

Shenzhen has more land for development unlike HK so I would not be surprised if the former exceed's the later's land area and population.

Macao is more a leisure city where its economy are mostly in gambling and tourism.

But it is not an economic powerhouse, a centre of trade or as global as HK.

On the other hand, Guangzhou was an important city back in the late 19th to mid 20th century. 

It again became one of the most vibrant cities in Mainland China today and this is because of its proximity from HK.

There are other large cities in Mainland China such as Amoy, Chongqing, Wuhan, etc. But they did not took off unlike Guangzhou, Shenzhen or Shanghai.

Now if HK was located in the Fujian Province near Amoy then Amoy would be in that level as the mentioned cities and its surrounding areas would become one of the top economic regions in China.

The Pearl River Delta region would not be an economic centre without HK. It is because of this city why other cities in this region grew and became economically important.


----------



## Nis_

PadArch said:


> you are right.. plenty probably sounds over the top, yes obviously thats an extreme and the vast majority don't travel that far, but nonetheless, there are people who do drive more than 2 hours. I sometimes used to go by bus to art school from north london to fulham, and it took 2 hours each direction - mind you thats going through some pretty bad traffic in central london.
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7009776.stm
> "As many as 71% of British workers travel to work by car"
> "3% of UK workers travel at least three hours every day"


i dont understand people who found job so far away,why they dont rent apartment near their job insted of 3h hour every day travel.I guess i am happy i live in small town where my job is 5 min of walking or 1 min by car.


----------



## :jax:

The rapid urbanization of Guangdong is in large part due to the capital and contacts funneled in through Hong Kong, yes. Likewise Fujian has benefited from proximity to Taiwan, and Liaoning and Shandong from proximity to South Korea and Japan. Geography matters.

By the way, it is becoming fairly smooth to cross the border between Shenzhen and Hong Kong if you have the right ID and use a border-crossing that isn't too crowded. I don't know if there are many who have a daily commute between the two cities, but I can imagine it to be common not many years from now. Housing for instance isn't that cheap in Shenzhen, but it is still a lot cheaper than the crazy prices in HK.

And while the Zhuhai-Macao arm of Pearl River City is economically and demographically less important, it is rapidly getting integrated as well.


----------



## the spliff fairy

btw if you look at the map page 1 Foshan, Guangzhou, Dongguan and Shenzhen are contiguous.


----------



## :jax:

I don't contest that, it is definitely built-up all the way. I was just saying that while Foshan-Guangzhou feels like one spread-out city, Foshan-Guangzhou-Dongguan-Shenzhen-(Hong Kong) doesn't yet.


----------



## megacity30

*The London metropolitan area contains around 14 million people*



Yuri S Andrade said:


> Can someone apply the same criteria the US Census Bureau uses for CSAs and MSAs to London? For MSAs, it's required a 25% of labour force of an adjacent county commuting in or out. For CSAs, 15%.
> 
> What about London area? Are you considering to redifine it?


Let's take the case of the London commuter belt:
How far do we stretch it and still be able to legitimately call it a single metropolitan area? 

A metropolitan area consists of a contiguous urban area with unrestricted daily commuting within its area. Urban areas that are not contiguous with the urban core can be considered a part of the same metropolitan area *provided *there is *substantial* (at least 15% of the total resident working population) and unrestricted (without an international border or politico-legal restrictions) *daily *out-commuter and in-commuter (from the urban core to the non-contiguous urban areas) flow. In-commuter flow is not a requirement, but if it exists, it definitely indicates being in the same metropolitan area.

Demographia has presented historic census data for southeast England, including the London urban area in the following URL:-

http://www.demographia.com/dm-lonarea.htm

As Jonesy55 and PadArch mentioned earlier, there are people commuting daily for work from regions surrounding southeast England to the London urban area .
However, the table above doesn't show those surrounding regions, primarily the East Midlands (Leicester, Nottingham etc). Based on actual commuter numbers from the East Midlands, as in the URL below, the East Midlands contributed a little over 10% of the daily workforce (mostly highly-skilled or entrepreneurial) in Milton Keynes.
Around 10000 workers traveled daily for work from the East Midlands to London as per the 2001 Census. 
Also, there was no significant daily in-commuter flow to the East Midlands from London.

http://i.thisis.co.uk/274596/binaries/commuting_flows_in_the_east_midlands.pdf

Therefore, it's clear that the regions surrounding southeast England cannot still be considered in the same metropolitan area as London. However, keeping this perspective in mind, we'll have to see how the urban form of the regions surrounding the London urban core evolve over the next decade or two.

Between Ring 2 and the London UA (urban area), there's around 32% of daily commuter flow in 2011- 19% in-commuter to the UA, 9.5% out-commuter to Ring 2 and 3.6% double-jobbers in the UA and Ring 2 combined. The following URL contains some interesting calculations in this regard:
http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/economic_unit/docs/current-issues-note-16.rtf












(1) http://www.newgeography.com/content/001809-london-special-report-the-making-hundred-mile-city

(2) http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/nr/rdonlyres/aaf109d7-88e1-48b2-a30c-8ec822514007/0/dp_pl_cityoflondonworkforcetravelsectioneinternet.pdf

(3) http://www.rentalcartours.net/rac-london.pdf

(4) http://www.audacity.org/TP-29-04-07.htm 

As is already shown above for the 2001 census, over 13.9 million people lived in the London UA and Ring 2. I expect the 2011 census will give us a population of over 14 million for the true metropolitan area of London.


----------



## megacity30

bay_area said:


> Er, then San Francisco should be combined with Sacramento & Stockton as the sprawl level and distance is similar to Chicago and Milwaukee, thus the population of a San Francisco-Sacramento Megacity would be over 10 Million as well.
> 
> Here are to-scale maps of both regions side by side using data from the 2010 US Census and the interactive map from the New York Times:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/9049/chisf.jpg


 
30 km of countryside lies between Stockton and Brentwood in the San Francisco CSA along Highway-4. 

Although the towns of Davis and Dixon are situated between Sacramento and Vacaville (San Francisco CSA) along the I-80 / Hwy 113, there's also 20 km of rural countryside along this route.

Again, there's a gap of 10 km countryside between Gatt (Stockton MSA) and Elk Grove (Sacramento MSA).

Please refer to their Google satellite maps.

Since we don't have suburban contiguity, we have to turn to daily commuter flow. I haven't yet found data that supports a mimimum total daily commuter flow of at least 15% between the San Fran CSA and the cities of Sacramento and Stockton - Lodi. Does anyone have this data?

In the satellite maps and even in the maps you provided, it is evident there is suburban contiguity between Chicago - Kenosha CSA and Milwaukee - Racine MSA, along Highway-32 and University of Wisconsin - Parkside campus.

Similarly, there is suburban contiguity between Los Angeles and San Diego, linked both by:-
(1) San Clemente (LA CSA) and Oceanside (SD MSA) along Camp Pendleton
(2) Fallbrook (LA CSA) and Vista (SD MSA).


----------



## bay_area

megacity30 said:


> 30 km of countryside lies between Stockton and Brentwood in the San Francisco CSA along Highway-4.
> 
> Although the towns of Davis and Dixon are situated between Sacramento and Vacaville (San Francisco CSA) along the I-80 / Hwy 113, there's also 20 km of rural countryside along this route.
> 
> Again, there's a gap of 10 km countryside between Gatt (Stockton MSA) and Elk Grove (Sacramento MSA).
> 
> Please refer to their Google satellite maps.


Read below.



> Since we don't have suburban contiguity, we have to turn to daily commuter flow. I haven't yet found data that supports a mimimum total daily commuter flow of at least 15% between the San Fran CSA and the cities of Sacramento and Stockton - Lodi. Does anyone have this data?


Actually as of 2000, the rate from Stockton to SF was 13%--should be over 15% when 2010 Census Data is released.

As far as Sacramento, the commuter rate to SF is slightly higher than the commuter rate from Milwaukee to Chicago, but both fall well short of combining for several decades, if ever.



> In the satellite maps and even in the maps you provided, it is evident there is suburban contiguity between Chicago - Kenosha CSA and Milwaukee - Racine MSA, along Highway-32 and University of Wisconsin - Parkside campus.


If your going to use the commuting requirement, then you also must incorporate the overlapping development requirement as well.

Simple contiguity does not meet the threshold for combing Metro Areas according to the Office of Management and Budget of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government of the US.

According to the OMB, in order to combine areas based on contiguous development, _*the 2 Metro Areas MUST have overlapping development of 5,000+ persons per square mile for the distance of 3+ miles.*_ 

Philadelphia and New York do not meet that requirement either btw.



> Similarly, there is suburban contiguity between Los Angeles and San Diego, linked both by:-
> (1) San Clemente (LA CSA) and Oceanside (SD MSA) along Camp Pendleton
> (2) Fallbrook (LA CSA) and Vista (SD MSA).


Not quite.

1. San Clemente and Oceanside are separated by a Military Installation and no development is allowed.

2. Fallbrook and Vista are both in San Diego County thus part of the SD MSA.


----------



## megacity30

*China's Mega-city candidates: Tianjin, Shantou, Quanzhou - Xiamen*



Yuri S Andrade said:


> From Wikipedia (and 2010 Chinese Census), some figures from China:
> *-------- Pop 2010 --- Area*
> Guangzhou --- 47,751,000 --- 30,138 km²
> Shanghai --- 45,784,000 --- 30,046 km²
> Beijing-Tianjin --- 36,400,000 --- 34,990 km²
> 
> _Definitions_
> _*Guangzhou*: Guangzhou, Dongguan, Shenzhen, Huizhou, Foshan, Zhongshan and Zhuhai_
> _*Shanghai*: Shanghai, Suzhou, Wuxi, Jiaxing and Huzhou_
> _*Beijing-Tianjin*: Beijing, Langfang, Tianjin_


Greater Guangzhou (Zhusanjiao) has already been included in our list as the most populous super-city in the world, overtaking Greater Tokyo (Kanto) for the first time in over 60 years.

However, Greater Shanghai and Beijing - Tianjin shouldn't be considered as single metropolitan areas because of the residence, work and study restrictions imposed by their Hukou requirements. 

As an example of the immense Hukou reforms introduced by the Guangdong province, inter-city residence, work and study have become possible without restrictions for the last few years.
Since last year, even rural migrants are being given equal socio-economic benefits based on a merit-based point system. Please refer to the following news article published by the well-known English-language news reporting agency in China, Xinhua:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2010-06/08/c_13338908.htm

The provinces of Jiangsu and Zhejiang, and the municipalities of Shanghai, Beijing and Tianjin require Hukou reform along these lines before we can consider merging them.



> Other important regions:
> 
> Wuhan --- 16,052,000 --- 18,920 km²
> Chongqing --- 16,044,000 --- 23,113 km²
> Nanjing --- 15,578,000 --- 17,075 km²
> Chengdu --- 14,048,000 --- 12,132 km²
> Shantou --- 13,938,000 --- 10,414 km²
> Quanzhou-Xiamen --- 11,660,000 --- 12,818 km²
> Shenyang --- 10,216,000 --- 17,336 km²
> Wenzhou --- 9,122,000 --- 11,784 km²
> Qingdao --- 8,715,000 --- 11,026 km²
> Hangzhou --- 8,700,000 --- 16,847 km²
> Xi'an --- 8,468,000 --- 9,983 km²
> Zhengzhou --- 8,127,000 --- 7,505 km²
> Changshun --- 7,459,000 --- 20,532 km²
> Fuzhou --- 7,115,000 --- 12,177 km²
> Changsha --- 7,044,000 --- 11,819 km²
> Jinan --- 6,814,000 --- 8,177 km²
> Harbin --- 6,705,000 --- 10,157 km²
> Dalian --- 6,170,000 --- 13,237 km²


These are prefectures, equivalent in other countries to states or provinces. Therefore, these population figures cannot be blindly equated to metropolitan areas.

Amazingly, two of them could be our next mega-cities.

I. The Shantou metropolitan area, located in liberal Guangdong province, and comprising the following urban components:-

(1) Shantou, including the urban districts of Jinping and Longhu, and suburban districts of Chaoyang, Chenghai, Chaonan and Haojiang, containing about 5.4 million people in 1956 sq km at the 2010 Census.

(2) Jieyang, including the urban district of Rongcheng (0.74 million people), Puning City (2.05 million people), and suburban counties of Jiedong (1.15 million people) and Huilai (1.1 million people), containing totally 5.04 million people in a total area of 3859 sq km in urban contiguity with Shantou to its north and north-west.

(3) Chaozhou, including the urban district of Xiangqiao (0.45 million people) and the suburban county of Chao'an (1.3 million people), containing totally 1.75 million people in an area of 1413.5 sq km in urban contiguity also to Shantou's north-west and to its west and south-west.

That brings the Shantou metropolitan area to a total population of 12.2 million!

:cheers:


II. The Quanzhou - Xiamen - Zhangzhou metropolitan area, located across Taiwan in Fujian Province, and comprising the following urban components:-

(1) Quanzhou, including the urban districts of Licheng and Fengze, and suburban Luojiang, Jinjiang, Nan'an and Shishi, suburban Hui'an county and Quanzhou district for Taiwanese investment are home to a total urban and suburban population of 6.07 million.

(2) Xiamen - Zhangzhou is already an officially recognized metropolitan area, is contiguous with Quanzhou and contains a total population of 5.03 million.
The Special Economic Zone of Xiamen consists of the urban districts of Huli and Siming having a population of 1.86 million in 136 sq km.
Xiamen metropolitan area, also known as Amoy, also contains the suburban districts of Jimei and Haicang having a population of 0.87 million in 431 sq km.
Zhangzhou is contiguous with Xiamen; its urban districts of Longwen and Xiacheng, and city of Longhai contain about 2.3 million people.

That's a total metropolitan area population of 11.1 million!
:shocked:

III. Tianjin metropolitan area contains 12.8 million people- I'm working on all the data I can get.


The remaining prefectures you've mentioned that contain over 10 million actually have the following metropolitan area population as of the 2010 provisional census (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China_by_population) and individual district info:

(a) Wuhan, including the urban districts of Jianghan, Qiaokou, Jiang'an, Wuchang, Hanyang, Qingshan and Hongshan, and the suburban district of Dongxihu, contains about 7 million people (the same as Hong Kong)

(b) Chongqing, including the urban districts of Yuzhong, Jiangbei, Shaoingba, Jiulongpo, Banan, Dadukou and Beibei, and the suburban districts of Yubei and Nan'an, contains about 5.4 million people.

(c) Nanjing, including the urban districts of Xuanwu, Baixia, Qinhuai, Jianye, Xiaguan, Gulou, Yuhuatai and Qixia, contains about 6.8 million people.

(d) Chengdu, including the urban districts of Wuhou, Qingyang, Jinjiang, Jinniu and Chenghua, the suburban districts of Wenjiang, Xindu and Longquanyi, and suburban part of the district of Qingbaijiang, contains about 7.1 million people.

(e) Shenyang - Fushun (urban), contains 6.76 million as of the 2010 Census.




> P.S. Why Chinese cities are full of blue roofs?


For millenia in China, the color blue denotes the "ocean people", or foreigners who arrived overseas. The buildings with blue roofs are mainly factories, warehouses etc for overseas production and distribution.
:yes:


----------



## megacity30

isaidso said:


> Using such a liberal catchment area would mean that the entire northeastern seaboard of the US is one city too. Toronto would be over 10 million as would South Florida.


A metropolitan area consists of a contiguous urban area with unrestricted daily commuting within its area. Urban areas that are not contiguous with the urban core can be considered a part of the same metropolitan area *provided *there is *substantial* (at least 15% of the total resident working population) and unrestricted (without an international border or politico-legal restrictions) *daily *out-commuter and in-commuter (from the urban core to the non-contiguous urban areas) flow. In-commuter flow is not a requirement, but if it exists, it definitely indicates being in the same metropolitan area.

Does the entire northeastern seaboard of the US meet the commuting requirements mentioned above? I don't think so! :nono:

The Toronto metropolitan area does not yet meet the minimum population requirement to become a mega-city. Please don't include Buffalo and Rochester because there's an international border in between.


----------



## megacity30

the spliff fairy said:


> ditto Western Europe, Honshu, Java, Nile Valley, northern India or eastern China...


:rofl:
Most of us would believe there's still many decades for that to happen!


----------



## megacity30

:jax: said:


> While this thread fits well into the SSC idiom of "mine is bigger than yours", some tenuous transport link does not a city make. Cities that have grown up from a village to a town obviously are cities, as are cities that have engulfed the neighbouring towns. Cities that are growing together are the contentious ones. I know people in SSC and outside have spent effort in defining what is continuous, useful if you want to define super-mega-hyper-whatever-cities in an objective way. However to my mind it is not enough.


This thread is not intended to promote a "mine is bigger than yours" idiom.
hno:
If you feel my comments have been otherwise, please LMK and I'll make the necessary corrections. 
So what are we attempting to do here?

(1) We're attempting to objectively embark on a fact-finding mission to ennumerate and understand better the world's biggest (most populous) metropolitan areas. 

(2) Also, we're also attempting to employ a standard international definition of a metropolitan area so it's appropriate for all the diverse countries on our planet, and not use only one country's definition of what a metropolitan area should be.

(3) Finally, although we're using official census data as one of our data sources, we're trying not to be blinded by what the country's officials say a city's true population is; instead, we're trying to determine whether the reality is a bit or a lot different.

It really is very interesting, if you think about it now.

You agree that a city that has engulfed its neighboring towns, does make one "city". However, you say cities that grew independently and then merged, do not make one "city"

Do you think that city which engulfed its neighboring towns grew completely isolated while its neighboring towns witnessed no growth?!!
Well, those neighboring towns would have witnessed incredible growth as well, perhaps even more than that city, and that growth merged them all.
Every super-city, hyper-city and mega-city in the world has followed this pattern of growth. 




> Take Pearl River City, it does not exist yet as I see it, but in a few years it will. Foshan-Guangzhou sure, and at a stretch Chang'an district of Dongguan with Shenzhen, but Dongguan is hardly connected with itself. Essentially if you are in Shenzhen close to Dongguan and want to go to Dongguan by public transport, you have to go back to the China-Hong Kong border to get ready transport to the different districts in Dongguan there, and you can expect to spend as much time to get to Guangzhou from neighbouring Dongguan as you would from Shenzhen/Hong Kong. Functionally Dongguan is a factory town for Guangzhou and Shenzhen rather than a full city in its own right. And the nearest points in Shenzhen and Guangzhou may be close, but they are also the extreme periphery of the respective cities, and there are no other crosslinks like Foshan-Dongguan either.
> 
> In five years when the transport infrastructure is there, and especially in ten when the population patterns have adjusted to the new structure, then I will consider Pearl River City to be one city, and a very big one (whatever the term) at that.


When you look at infrastructure in developing countries, especially growth as unprecedented and unparalleled in the 21st century as Shenzhen and Dongguan, you realize "the beautiful house and its neighborhood was built before its approach road was ready", so to speak.


----------



## :jax:

megacity30 said:


> This thread is not intended to promote a "mine is bigger than yours" idiom.


I believe that, but we've seen where many threads on SSC have been going. That is an argument for objective criteria, and I applaud that too, but to me, subjectively if you like, the objective criteria are necessary, but not sufficient. Commuting might be an additonal criterium, but how should that be measured? 



megacity30 said:


> (1) We're attempting to objectively embark on a fact-finding mission to ennumerate and understand better the world's biggest (most populous) metropolitan areas.
> 
> (2) Also, we're also attempting to employ a standard international definition of a metropolitan area so it's appropriate for all the diverse countries on our planet, and not use only one country's definition of what a metropolitan area should be.
> 
> (3) Finally, although we're using official census data as one of our data sources, we're trying not to be blinded by what the country's officials say a city's true population is; instead, we're trying to determine whether the reality is a bit or a lot different.
> 
> It really is very interesting, if you think about it now.
> 
> You agree that a city that has engulfed its neighboring towns, does make one "city". However, you say cities that grew independently and then merged, do not make one "city"
> 
> When you look at infrastructure in developing countries, especially growth as unprecedented and unparalleled in the 21st century as Shenzhen and Dongguan, you realize "the beautiful house and its neighborhood was built before its approach road was ready", so to speak.


No, I was saying that it is easy to tell when a single city is expanding, it is easy to say that it is a city (with some caveats, they tend to incorporate farmland and towns that are not necessarily connected at the time of annexation), but it is more tricky when you join multiple cities. And before the beautiful house, and the other criteria are all there it is not yet a "real" city. And it is difficult to find objective criteria for "realness". It needs more connected-ness than built-up areas to make one single city (looser terms like conurbation and the like is a different story, and in other contexts just as important). 

I picked on Pearl River exactly because has a better claim than many, it will de facto be a city whether it will be adminstratively a city or not, a bit like Ruhr (but to *really* be a city I think it should also administratively be one). The looser parts of Pearl River is reminiscent of the US Silicon Valley, which is not a city.

This region is still growing, and in general Chinese cities are growing very quickly and can be expected to keep doing so for another 10-20 years, African cities are growing even quicker, that's where I would expect most of the largest cities, and they are on the whole much less planned than than the Chinese ones. In comparison European cities are not expected to grow at all (some will grow, others shrink), and North Americans to grow slowly.


----------



## aaabbbccc

Casablanca Morocco will never make it in this list ( 5 to 6 million by 2050 ) today the metro area of Casablanca is 4 million , but I like this thread it is very interesting


----------



## Minato ku

Anderson Geimz said:


> The CSA methodology is a known one and the data is out there. I'll be hearing back from you in about a week then?


I don't want the methodology of the CSA, I want the data of the so called London metro calculated with the CSA method.
I am sure that you never ever seen it, for obvious reason, it doesn't exist.

Obviously London is well linked with the whole Southeastern England and has many connection with it.
Obviously the Southeast England is very influenced by London but claiming that it is as whole the metropolitan area of London is going a bit too far.

I don't like when a city is underestimated but on the oposite, I don't like the overstatement, including for my own city.
I NEVER claimed that Paris had 15 million inhabitants and I will never do it before seeing any serious document proving that the metropolitan area of my city is as populated whatever the methodology (INSEE aire urbaine, Eurostat LUZ, MSA, CSA or etc)...

Except for some cities where the metro area is divided for weird reasons like Los Angeles or San Francisco, I am not a big fan of the CSA.
This method works well in low densely populated area.
By exemple there is not a big difference between Chicago MSA (9,461,105) and Chicago CSA (9,686,021).
But Boston and Washington DC, it gets somewhat exaggerated.


----------



## Anderson Geimz

RobertWalpole said:


> Based on the American method, the London metro equals all of south England, and this amounts to a metro of roughly 30m which, in turn, is the second biggest city in the world.
> 
> How can you doubt this? London has been the biggest and most important city in the world for over 2,000 years.


Go away troll...


----------



## chornedsnorkack

Tokyo:
Area 2187 sq km, including sparsely settled ocean isles and mountains. Population 13,2 millions, density about 6100 per square km.
Across the borders:
Kanagawa Prefecture, area 2416 sq km incl. sparsely settled remote areas, population 9 millions, density about 3700 per square km
Saitama prefecture, 3797 sq km, 7,2 million people, about 1900 per square km
Chiba prefecture, 5156 square km, 6,2 million people, about 1200 per square km.

Total of 1 capital 3 prefectures - about 13 500 sq km, 36 million people.

Cross the borders, and Ibaraki prefecture average is 486 per square km.

Now look at Shenzhen. Note that Hong Kong is a separate city because commuters are stopped for border check. On special economic zone borders of Shenzhen, people are not stopped for check.

Shenzhen - 2050 sq km, 10,4 million people.
Dongguan - 2465 sq km, 8,2 million people
Guangzhou - 7434 sq km, including sparsely settled countryside in the north; 12,7 million people.

Total for the 3 east bank prefectures:
11 950 sq km, 31,3 million people.
Huizhou is sparsely settled (420 per square km). On west bank, Foshan is 3814 sq km, 7,2 million people; Zhongshan 1800 sq km, 3,1 million people.

So on both banks about 17 600 sq km, and about 42,6 million people.

Zhuhai is sparsely settled, 1650 sq km and 1,56 million people.


----------



## Anderson Geimz

Minato ku said:


> I don't want the methodology of the CSA, I want the data of the so called London metro calculated with the CSA method.
> I am sure that you never ever seen it, for obvious reason, it doesn't exist.
> 
> Obviously London is well linked with the whole Southeastern England and has many connection with it.
> Obviously the Southeast England is very influenced by London but claiming that it is as whole the metropolitan area of London is going a bit too far.
> 
> I don't like when a city is underestimated but on the oposite, I don't like the overstatement, including for my own city.
> I NEVER claimed that Paris had 15 million inhabitants and I will never do it before seeing any serious document proving that the metropolitan area of my city is as populated whatever the methodology (INSEE aire urbaine, Eurostat LUZ, MSA, CSA or etc)...
> 
> Except for some cities where the metro area is divided for weird reasons like Los Angeles or San Francisco, I am not a big fan of the CSA.
> This method works well in low densely populated area.
> By exemple there is not a big difference between Chicago MSA (9,461,105) and Chicago CSA (9,686,021).
> But Boston and Washington DC, it gets somewhat exaggerated.


We are not debating whether you like the US Census definition CSA or not!

We are not debating whether the US Census definition for CSA should be applied to non American cities!

We are not debating whether the US Census definition for CSA is "the right" definition for metropolitan area!

FACT
*If you apply the US Census definition for CSA to London, you get 18 million population!*

So if you don't like it, just disregard it and move on! And if you doubt it is true..., prove otherwise (I'm not going to do it for you).

Better people then you and me have calculated it in the past on this very forum and yes I have seen it. It was before this forum was populated by trolling little shits...


----------



## RobertWalpole

I'm curious of the results using the Canadian system. Candians are usually even-handed.


----------



## Anderson Geimz

RobertWalpole said:


> I'm curious of the results using the Canadian system. Candians are usually even-handed.


Then make yourself usefull and start calculating. If it keeps you of the forum for awhile, all the better.


----------



## Minato ku

Anderson Geimz said:


> FACT
> *If you apply the US Census definition for CSA to London, you get 18 million population!*


Before saying that something is a fact *YOU NEED TO PROVE IT*.
There is several methods to do it :
-Showing the source of a such calcul.
-Calculating it by yourself and showing all the methodology and results.



Anderson Geimz said:


> Better people then you and me have calculated it in the past on this very forum and yes I have seen it. It was before this forum was populated by trolling little shits...


So it should be easy to find a correct source.


----------



## RobertWalpole

Anderson Geimz said:


> Then make yourself usefull and start calculating. If it keeps you of the forum for awhile, all the better.


Why are you so cross? I'm the one who supports your arguments. No one else seems to agree with you.


----------



## Anderson Geimz

Minato ku said:


> Before saying that something is a fact *YOU NEED TO PROVE IT*.
> There is several methods to do it :
> -Showing the source of a such calcul.
> -Calculating it by yourself and showing all the methodology and results.
> 
> So it should be easy to find a correct source.


No it's not easy because it was calculated years ago by members of this forum. Maybe as many as 8-9-10 years back.

It keeps popping up in discussions EITHER because everyone keeps using US CSA's when comparing to other cities OR when people like you dismiss it without having looked into it themselves, usually for trollish boosterim reasons (in your case it probably has something to do with Paris, which is pretty weird because metro London has about 2 million more people than Paris no matter what method we use. Paris would probably have 16 million people too if we apply CSA standards to it).

I really don't see what's so hard to believe. We all know that England is very densely populated, especially around London. We all know that London is a huge commuter magnet even from places 100km away. We all know American CSA's take up huge areas and we know that London's "CSA" is smaller in area than most American CSA's. 18 million on the basis of those conditions is no surprise at all.

Again, I'm not going to spend hours of work and then have you or someone else dismiss it on a technicality or downright ignore it and keep trolling for the next couple of years (been there done that, stopped doing that about 5 years ago because another troll always comes along...)

And again, if you're not interested then move on! And if you are, stop whining about it and factcheck.

US Census:
http://www.census.gov/population/metro/
ONS:
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/index.html

Be my guest, let me know what the results are and if you are finally willing to admit you're wrong.


----------



## Minato ku

Anderson Geimz said:


> No it's not easy because it was calculated years ago by members of this forum. Maybe as many as 8-9-10 years back.


Do you really believe that I didn't knew about this.
I even know the forumer who claimed having made this calculation.

Before you come, this overstatement was even a bigger, the 18 million inhabitants London was not made with the CSA method but with the INSEE aire urbaine method. :nuts:

Some link to prove what I'm saying.
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=272937&page=2
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=4647877
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=234989&page=3
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=241887&page=9

It changed few years ago as the US CSA method because obsviously the INSEE aire urbaine is a bit too big lie to appear as true.



Anderson Geimz said:


> I really don't see what's so hard to believe. We all know that England is very densely populated, especially around London.


The fact that a place is very densly populated don't means that a metropolitan area is huge and cover all this place.
You don't remember of the Lille and Toulouse exemple I posted yesterday ago.



Minato ku said:


> It is not because a city has more people in an area smaller than an other that it has more people in its metro area.
> In reality more a city tend to be in a densely population region, more its metropolitan area tend to be small in km².
> 
> We have a good exemple in France, Lille and Toulouse.
> There are more population around Toulouse than around Lille if you took a similar area but Toulouse metropolitan area is more populated than Lille.
> (4,000 km² for Toulouse and 1,000 km² for Lille).
> 
> Why a such difference of size ? Because Toulouse is in an empty region, there is any signifiant cities several tens of kilometers around Toulouse.
> The closest large city (and it only have 80,000 inhabitants) is Montauban at 50km.
> Lille on opposite is surrounded by several medium-sized cities, large enough to accommodate counter its importance and attract commuters.





Anderson Geimz said:


> We all know that London is a huge commuter magnet even from places 100km away.


Now yes we know that they are people who travel almost 100 km to work into London but how many of them reported as the whole working population of an area.
Not enouth to make a metropolitan area.

Remember this picture I posted two week ago.


Minato ku said:


> They tend to exagerate the number of commute into London in UK, there are only something like 800,000 people commuting into Greater London everyday.
> Mostly comming for the close suburbs or towns just outside Greater London.
> 
> Not at all enouth to make a metropolitan area of 20 million inhabitants.


You can take Reading by exemple, the city is populated by 232,662 inhabitants.
According this map there are between 0 and 5,000 people from reading commuting into London.
If we imagine that the working population of Reading is the half of the population.
So a working population of 116,331 and if we image that it is 5,000 people who commute from Reading into London everyday (according this map it could also be none).
This would means that only 4.3% of Reading working popluation commute to London everyday.

Taking next area to Reading Wokingham between 5,000 and 10,000 people commute into London everyday.
This area has a population of 163,200 inhabitants.
So could imagine a working population of 81,600 inhabitants, if 10,000 commute into London, this would means 12.2%, still not enouth to make a metropolitan area.

Of course my argument has a flaw, it doesn't take in consideration the existing suburbs of London wich are not included into Greater London but fortunately those aren't so populated. Only 1 million inhabitants more.
It would not make a big difference.

Even in Chelmsford view as a commute town of London, less than 20% of its working force population commute into London.
Not enouth to be a part of a London MSA.
Same for Luton.

Could Chelmsford or Luton be included in a London CSA metro area because the CSA is made of several MSA that have a signifiant inter-commuting with each other.
But for Reading, the gap is too huge.


----------



## Anderson Geimz

How can you post those links and claim they contain proof of what you are saying?!

The debate in those links totally proves that what I'm saying is true!!!

And is it any wonder professionals like Justme and Manuel left this forum? It seems every two years some little shit turns up discrediting their work! And why does it always have to be a Frenchman? It really gets old!

Read this and weep:
http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/economic_unit/docs/wp13_towards_a_common_standard.pdf
Official source, backing the claim that using a CSA/CSA like definition on London results in 18 million!
Now please STFU about it!

Your maps and graphs are 10 years old. You misunderstand the meaning of CSA. It doesnt matter how big a % of Reading workforce commutes directely into London, the % of intercommuting between MSA's is what matters. MSA's again are calculated taking a UA (this is important!) and adding counties with a certain % of commuters (just 25%). London's UA when calculated the US Census way already is 12 million and includes all home counties. We're almost there already...

So please stop spreading your bullshit because you don't understand how generous the US Census definition for CSA's really is!!!
If you don't like it (again for the third time!) ignore it and move on, but don't argue against the facts and continue on this misguided crusade against reason and truth.


----------



## Minato ku

^^ Before posting a link, read it because there is nothing about a London CSA of 18 million inhabitants in your source.

It is just a comparaison of several methods to make a more united and homogeneous metropolitan area methods for every city.
There is no population figure.


----------



## megacity30

*The enigmatic true population of the London commuter belt*



Minato ku said:


> ^^ Before posting a link, read it because there is nothing about a London CSA of 18 million inhabitants in your source.
> 
> It is just a comparaison of several methods to make a more united and homogeneous metropolitan area methods for every city.
> There is no population figure.


This thread has become dominated by the discussion on the true population of today's London commuter belt... and no wonder! It is a mystery, no doubt :bash:
Let's wait for the UK Census 2011 to release urban area data, and then we can try calculating based on recent data.

In the meantime, any comments on the other mega-cities in our list?


----------



## Yuri S Andrade

^^
I know I'm pushing, but I still don't understand how could you include Cambridge, Oxford and Southampton in your London metro and find 13.9 million people. That's the figure for the inner commuter belt, several times smaller than your definition. Using yours, the correct population is 21 million people. I myself proposed two smaller definitions, with 15 and 17 million people respectively.

I don't understand why we need to wait the Census to correct London's figures. They can be easily found on internet.


----------



## geodomain

Earlier in this thread and a few others on this forum, pearl river city was mentioned. Do we have reason to believe this "megacity" is being constructed as of now or is this just a project that is starting within the next few years? I cant find too much info about it google is not my friend on this one :/ all I've found for the most part are articles denying any such thing. (I'm beginning to assume this is being kept a secret during the beginning stages of development for whatever reason?)


----------



## megacity30

Yuri S Andrade said:


> ^^
> I know I'm pushing, but I still don't understand how could you include Cambridge, Oxford and Southampton in your London metro and find 13.9 million people. That's the figure for the inner commuter belt, several times smaller than your definition. Using yours, the correct population is 21 million people. I myself proposed two smaller definitions, with 15 and 17 million people respectively.
> 
> I don't understand why we need to wait the Census to correct London's figures. They can be easily found on internet.


You do have a point, Yuri, and am glad you pushed it.

As per the 2001 Census, 13.945 million (in an area of 20,044 sq km) is the population of the London urban area and its immediate urban environs contiguous with outer London called the Home Counties of Kent, Surrey, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Essex. This encompasses the inner commuter belt.

This is summarized in wikipedia-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_commuter_belt

In 2011, I believe the time is approaching for us to consider the outer commuter belt (south-east and east England) while calculating the London commuter statistics and extent of the metropolitan area.

This information is not clearly defined, although there are some websites such as the following that discuss it-

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/regional-statistics/region.html?region=South+East

http://www.uttlesford.gov.uk/docume...A Viability 310810 draft final appendices.pdf

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/regional-statistics/region.html?region=East+of+England

Greater London Urban Area has an official population estimate (as of 2009) of 7.75 million.
South-east England contains 8 million as per 2001 Census.
East of England contains 5.4 million people.

So yes, if we were to combine the three regions (including the outer commuter belt), we would have 21.15 million people as per previous official data living in 39,788 sq km.

On the other hand, the inner commuter belt has 13.945 million people in 20,044 sq km.

As per the document links provided above, the inner commuter belt has an average of over 25% inter-commuting.
The outer commuter belt has an average of less than 15% inter-commuting. 
This is why we have to tread carefully before we include the outer commuter belt, moreso because there is no urban /suburban contiguity of the outer belt with the London urban area,

This is why I am awaiting the 2011 Census statistics.


----------



## megacity30

geodomain said:


> Earlier in this thread and a few others on this forum, pearl river city was mentioned. Do we have reason to believe this "megacity" is being constructed as of now or is this just a project that is starting within the next few years? I cant find too much info about it google is not my friend on this one :/ all I've found for the most part are articles denying any such thing. (I'm beginning to assume this is being kept a secret during the beginning stages of development for whatever reason?)


You're correct there has been no official declaration yet on Zhusanjiao (the Pearl River Super-City). 

However, please refer to the first two pages of this thread for further clarification.
All its urban components are contiguous and due to recent Hukou reform, we have over 15% of unrestricted daily commuter flow within its components as well.

This is why we have classified it as one metropolitan area- the most populous one in the world now.

It may not yet feel as one city but when an urban area reaches this unprecedented magnitude, we cannot compare it with mono-core cities having a few million people in it.

The Kanto Super-City is the only other Super-City in the world now, and for commuters even there traveling, say, between Kawasaki and Chiba would feel they are traveling across cities, and that they are not really one city. 

With the dawn of Super-Cities, we could safely say urbanization is reaching proportions unimaginable just a few decades ago. There is urban contiguity on scales of monstrosity, and yet there is a sense of disconnectedness.


----------



## Manila-X

It is interesting how Japanese cities grew to that scale especially within The Greater Tokyo area. 

But the fact the coastal areas of Japan are the few areas where a large city can grow.


----------



## :jax:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/12/urbanisation_africa



> The most populous city in 2010, Cairo, will grow by 23% to 13.5m people. By 2025, however, it will have been overtaken by both Lagos (15.8m) and Kinshasa (15m). Food and water shortages, poor infrastructure and a lack of housing are among the problems faced by governments during such rapid urbanisation. Progress in meeting these challenges would be shown by a fall in the proportion of slum-dwellers, who currently account for 70% of urban inhabitants.


----------



## Jaeger

LMAO :lol:

If you want to study London's wider polycentric region then I suggest you stop squabbling like children, and look at the work of Sir Peter Hall, FBA - Professor at University College London and President of both the Town and Country Planning Association and the Regional Studies Association, who is widely considered a leading expert in the growth of Polycentric Mega City Regions across the globe.

http://www.ippr.org/uploadedFiles/r...evelopment_in_the_South_East/Peter Hall 1.pdf

http://www.stipo.info/Artikel/ReUrbA_interview_Sir_Peter_Hall

http://gregclarkspeaker.com/PDFs/London Case Study 6- The Greater South East Region.pdf

http://connectedcities.eu/coordination/partners/seeda.html

http://connectedcities.eu/downloads/magazines/nt_2005_dec_seeda.pdf

http://www.investthamesgateway.com/business/london-south-east.html


Some suggested bed time reading by none other than Sir Peter Hall and Professor Kathy Pain 

http://www.planum.net/journals-book...lis-learning-from-mega-city-regions-in-europe










And some further work by Professor Kathy Pain and others in relation to London's Polycentric Region 

http://www.polynet.org.uk/docs/1_1_see.pdf

http://www.polynet.org.uk/docs/1_2_see.pdf

http://www.polynet.org.uk/docs/2_1_see.pdf

http://www.polynet.org.uk/docs/2_1_see.pdf




Now stop arguing :lol:


----------



## megacity30

Minato ku said:


> ^^ If I did use a such distance, it is because the region is big.
> Obviously I didn't use a ten miles zoom to look at the sprawl, I did go much closer.
> The region is densely populated with a lot of small rural village around the road like in many asian countries but it doesn't make it a single metropolitan area.
> 
> Take the region around Lille in France, a dense region where metropolitan area are touching each other.
> Despite this fact, Lens is not a part of Lille metropolitan area nor is Valencienne.


Minato ku, your points are definitely compelling, and it's thrilling to see a fresh viewpoint. That's the reason this thread was created- for fresh input, to see what may have been missed out.

Given the fact that you have posted several thousand times in the SSC forums over many years, and are a moderator, it would be naive of me to not delve deeper.

It's true there are some huge urban areas in Asia such as Delhi that have many dense highly-populated rural villages in their vicinity (NCR Rings 3 and 4). I'll have to investigate further to confirm this is not the case here.

At the same time it's useful to not compare apples to oranges. 
I don't think Lille can be used at all to compare with Jakarta.

(1) Jakarta's official metropolitan area (Jabotabek - Cirangkarta) contains over 35 million people in an area of 18,000 sq km and is one of Asia's principal spheres of influence. Lille urban area (including Roubaix, Tourcoing etc) contains only 1 million people in 450 sq km and ranks #4 population-wise even within France. There is absolutely no comparison here in terms of extent of influence, size and surrounding satellite towns.

(2) Even within the official metropolitan area, distances travelled can easily exceed 70 km. Purwakarta is actually contiguous with the Bandung metropolitan area. Even though the northern part of the Bandung metropolitan area is quite hilly, there are many, what appear to be, highly urbanized settlements even there, but I need to verify this with certainty, perhaps from the Indonesian forums and street-level pictures.

Except two small villages, there is only countryside between Lille and Valenciennes. However, I agree if Lille had been a bigger urban area, we may have included Lens, and even Mouscron and Kortrijk in the Lille metropolitan area as per our globally standardized definition. The only way Valenciennes could get included is if there was evidence of substantial (over 15%) inter-commuting.

(3) The foremost aspect of this thread is we're not blinded by what the authorities say the metropolitan area is; instead we rely on input provided by its residents, reliable data (official or otherwise), published online articles, and examining maps and satellite views with our own eyes. 

The reason we're examining only the big metropolitan areas is because they're in a world by themselves- very different in their study with unique features and issues due to their immense complexity and population.
Small metropolitan areas like Lille are much easier to calculate and handle.

Just a decade ago, nobody would have said Bandung and Cilegon could be in the same metropolitan area as Greater Jakarta. However, in just 10 years, Greater Jakarta has nearly doubled in population, its surface transportation networks increased almost three times, and socio-economic activity between Jakarta and Bandung increased manifold (as indicated in some of the article URLs I posted earlier).


----------



## megacity30

bay_area said:


> I dont know where you and Yuri gleaned this hypothesis from but actual commuter data between the New York combined Statistical Area and Philadelphia Combined Statistica Area show very small commuter flow.
> 
> Nearly all of the land in between NY and Philadephia is the NY Metro Area and nearly all of the traffic and commuter flows that occur in that corridor is intra-NY traffic and commuter flow.
> 
> Even the Metro border crossing highway lanes that connect these 2 Metro Areas is extremely small considering the massive size of both NY and Philadelphia.
> 
> *New York-Philadelphia MSAs*
> Garden State Parkway Ocean-Burlington 4 lanes at the MSA border
> Hy 202 Hunterdon-Bucks 4 lanes at the MSA border
> Total: 8 lanes on major freeways at the MSA border
> 
> Other crossings are between Philadelphia and the Trenton MSAs.
> 
> Philadelphians sometimes claim that they were 'robbed' of Mercer County, NJ(part of the NY Metro) but based on 2000 commuter data this is definitely not true:
> County of Employment for Residents of Mercer, NJ, 2000 Census
> New York CSA Counties in Red/ Philadelphia CSA Counties in Blue100+commuters
> 1 Mercer, NJ 112,449
> 2 Middlesex, NJ 16,597
> 3 New York City, NY 6,545 (added up the 5 boroughs)
> 4 Somerset, NJ 3,8655 Bucks, PA 3,865
> 6 Burlington, NJ 3,765
> 7 Monmouth, NJ 2,483
> 8 Philadelphia, PA 1,548
> 9 Essex, NJ 1,490
> 10 Union, NJ 1,291
> 11 Hunterdon, NJ 1,194
> 12 Bergen, NJ 803
> 13 Hudson, NJ 775
> 14 Morris, NJ 751
> 15 Montgomery, PA 704
> 16 Ocean, NJ 667
> 17 Camden, NJ 588
> 18 Delaware, PA 244
> 19 Passaic, NJ 188
> 20 New Castle, DE 139
> 21 Gloucester, NJ 136
> 
> 
> Tally of Destination Counties with more than 100+ workers:
> Mercer Co. Residents who worked in New York in 2000: 36,649
> Mercer Co. Residents who worked in Philadephia in 2000: 10,989
> 
> I think this clearly shows that Mercer County more than met the 15% criteria needed to combine with New York.


:applause: First off, I believe your post deserves an applause for the points made and info provided.
We tried to create one standardized definition for all metropolitan areas globally and have used urban contiguity combined with unrestricted commuting as a sure sign of being in the same metropolitan area. We don't even need to rely on commuter numbers in such cases.

The metropolitan areas of New York City and Philadelphia have merged into one by being contiguous in Mercer County.



> FYI, Stockton sends more workers to San Francisco than Philadelphia sends to New York.


It would be wonderful if we could get recent inter-commuting numbers between the Bay Area and both Stockton and Sacramento. The extended Bay Area may then become a Mega-City candidate.



> Okay, I'll grudgingly concede this. LOL.


Thank you! :cheers:



> From a development standpoint, yeah, but from a commuter standpoint the connection is relatively tiny, and from the standpoint of regional cohesiveness, both LA and SD have distinct identities independent of each other.


Again, the CSAs of LA and SD have contiguous urban sprawl along two corridors: Temecula - Vista, and Camp Pendleton.

Military installations / cantonments, university campuses and industrial areas that are contiguous with an urban area are always considered a part of its metropolitan area.



> Having said all that, I can agree to disagree with you but I do respect your effort and like the conversation as this is one of my favorite topics, so Thanks for the great thread!


:smug: Fabulous... I appreciate it.


----------



## Minato ku

megacity30 said:


> It's true there are some huge urban areas in Asia such as Delhi that have many dense highly-populated rural villages in their vicinity (NCR Rings 3 and 4). I'll have to investigate further to confirm this is not the case here.
> 
> At the same time it's useful to not compare apples to oranges.
> I don't think Lille can be used at all to compare with Jakarta.
> 
> (1) Jakarta's official metropolitan area (Jabotabek - Cirangkarta) contains over 35 million people in an area of 18,000 sq km and is one of Asia's principal spheres of influence. Lille urban area (including Roubaix, Tourcoing etc) contains only 1 million people in 450 sq km and ranks #4 population-wise even within France. There is absolutely no comparison here in terms of extent of influence, size and surrounding satellite towns.


Obvious Lille and Jakartaka are not comparable in size but their surrounding are somewhat comparable with the high density of inhabitants around the city.

Now I have a question how exactly is calculated Jakartaka metropolitan area ?



megacity30 said:


> (2) Even within the official metropolitan area, distances travelled can easily exceed 70 km. Purwakarta is actually contiguous with the Bandung metropolitan area. Even though the northern part of the Bandung metropolitan area is quite hilly, there are many, what appear to be, highly urbanized settlements even there, but I need to verify this with certainty, perhaps from the Indonesian forums and street-level pictures.


I only see one 2x2 tolled expressway between Jakarta and Bandung.
The few other highways are small and with many village around, it means that the trip will be long and congestioned, not ideal for long daily commute.

Train ride takes three hours between Jakarta and Bundung.

To understand well, this is how is Bandung to Jakarta.








The place colored in red are urbanised land.

Like in many dense Asian countries, there are a lot of villages around the highway but do we should call it sprawl ? This is an interesting question.

Even if all these small village touch each others (one day, it will happen), will Jakarta and Bandung really be part of a single metropolitan area ?
In my opinion no.

There is some difference between continent and dense region that using some methods can show a disproporiate size of metropolitan area in some case.
I am sure that one day the whole Bangladesh could be said to be a single metropolitan area.
Will it be true ? obviously not.



megacity30 said:


> (3) The foremost aspect of this thread is we're not blinded by what the authorities say the metropolitan area is; instead we rely on input provided by its residents, reliable data (official or otherwise), published online articles, and examining maps and satellite views with our own eyes.


Yes by exemple this how France calculate ites metropolitan area. We call it aire urbaine.



> The aire urbaine (French for "urban area") is a statistical region created by the INSEE (National statistics bureau of France) that comprises a commuter belt (couronne périurbaine) surrounding a contiguous urban core (pôle urbain). As defined, it is similar (though not identical) to the more general term, "metropolitan area", used in English.
> The aire urbaine is a demographic unit that is based on France's nation-wide map of abutting communes (municipalities). It centers on a core of communes (the pôle urbain) that represents a distinct and unified connurbation, a zone of economically and socially interdependent communities displaying interconnected and unbroken urban growth.
> This center forms a "pole of attraction" for a "periurban ring" or "commuter belt" (couronne périurbaine). Communes having at least 40% of their resident populations commuting back and forth to the pôle urbain, or commuting to other communes having the same relation to the pôle urbain, are defined as being part of the aire urbaine commuter belt. The result is a precise demographic map of a center of urban growth and its socio-economic reach into the surrounding area.
> Note that there is a slight difference between a pôle urbain and another commonly used demographic term, the unité urbaine (the "urban unit"). The unité urbaine is a contiguous urban area supporting at least five thousand jobs, and the pôle urbain is an urban area not contained within the couronne périurbaine (commuter belt) of any other pôle urbain.





megacity30 said:


> The reason we're examining only the big metropolitan areas is because they're in a world by themselves- very different in their study with unique features and issues due to their immense complexity and population.
> Small metropolitan areas like Lille are much easier to calculate and handle.


The size of the metropolitan area does not change anything in the calcul, the density and the planning of a region can.
The first thing that made a metropolitan area plausible is the commute.

In the case of Jakarta and Bandung by viewing the infrasctrure existing (highway, railways), it is clear that both are different metropolitan areas and not a single one like can be Tokyo within the Kanto.
Saying that Jakarta metropolitan area is over 40 million in the same way that Tokyo is 35 million, it like comparing Apple and Orange.


----------



## megacity30

Minato ku said:


> Obvious Lille and Jakartaka are not comparable in size but their surrounding are somewhat comparable with the high density of inhabitants around the city.
> 
> Now I have a question how exactly is calculated Jakartaka metropolitan area ?
> I only see one 2x2 tolled expressway between Jakarta and Bandung.
> The few other highways are small and with many village around, it means that the trip will be long and congestioned, not ideal for long daily commute.
> Train ride takes three hours between Jakarta and Bundung.
> 
> To understand well, this is how is Bandung to Jakarta.
> The place colored in red are urbanised land.
> 
> Like in many dense Asian countries, there are a lot of villages around the highway but do we should call it sprawl ? This is an interesting question.


To visualize present day urbanization in the Greater Jakarta Metropolitan Area, I would include the following urban density map (colored purple / pink):

http://geology.com/world-cities/jakarta-indonesia.jpg

(the map is not shown here and only link is provided due to copyright) 

We see contiguous urban density from the central Jabotabek urban area-

(i) to its west along Serang Regency until Serang Town
(ii) to its east and south-east along Karawang Regency until Purwakarta Town

However, you can see an approximate gap of 25 km beyond Purwakarta. Therefore, the string of dense villages don't appear in the urban density map.
What makes these dense villages rural is their primary occupation - agricultural / pastoral. 

Therefore, Jakarta and Bandung urban areas are still separated from each other.



> Even if all these small village touch each others (one day, it will happen), will Jakarta and Bandung really be part of a single metropolitan area ?
> In my opinion no.
> 
> There is some difference between continent and dense region that using some methods can show a disproporiate size of metropolitan area in some case.
> I am sure that one day the whole Bangladesh could be said to be a single metropolitan area.
> Will it be true ? obviously not.


Agreed. 

However, we are witnessing rapid urbanization (change in primary occupations from rural to urban, urban infrastructure and population growth) in the Jakarta - Bandung corridor being called EMA (extended metropolitan area) or MUR (mega-urban region).

At the same time, commuters in this corridor are usually not daily commuters. Therefore, we have to rely on urbanization alone and not the daily commute for this corridor. Of course, this may change too as this corridor is increasingly urbanized.

A few references in this regard-

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-940X.1995.tb00069.x/abstract

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/06/26/megaurbanization-jakartabandung-region.html

http://www.mendeley.com/research/co...survey-jakartabandung-region-jbr-development/




> Yes by exemple this how France calculate ites metropolitan area. We call it aire urbaine.
> 
> The size of the metropolitan area does not change anything in the calcul, the density and the planning of a region can.
> The first thing that made a metropolitan area plausible is the commute.





> In the case of Jakarta and Bandung by viewing the infrasctrure existing (highway, railways), it is clear that both are different metropolitan areas and not a single one like can be Tokyo within the Kanto.
> Saying that Jakarta metropolitan area is over 40 million in the same way that Tokyo is 35 million, it like comparing Apple and Orange.


Not entirely true.

We see the same urban density gap between Cianjur and Sukabumi. Even if we remove Bandung metropolitan area, Cilegon, Cianjur and Sukabumi, we have an area three times smaller than the Kanto metropolitan area, with nearly the same urban population.

Therefore, I wouldn't be surprised at all if even the urban development and government authorities include Bandung in the Greater Jakarta metropolitan area in Indonesia's Census 2020 (they are already considering including Cilegon, Sukabumi and Cianjur).

Again, many parts of North Kanto region (Prefectures of Ibaraki, Tochigi and Gunma) containing 12 million people are not considered by the Japan Statistics Bureau, or the University of Tokyo to be a part of the Tokyo metropolitan area. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Tokyo_Area

A population of 35.623 million is the recognized metropolitan population of Greater Tokyo as per Japan's 2010 Census which is the same as the population of Jabotabek - Cirangkarta as per Indonesia's 2010 Census.


----------



## megacity30

*Both Tokyo and Jakarta are not Super-Cities*

Excluding the Bandung Metropolitan Area, Cilegon, Sukabumi and Cianjur, the metropolitan components remaining are the Regencies of Serang, Karawang and Purwakarta, with a population of 5,430,925.

Adding Jabotabek urban area (population 28,019,545), we have Jakarta's metropolitan area of 33,450,470 people living in an area of 11,100.185 sq km.
(population density: 3013 / sq km)

I will update that now.


However, we now have to examine Tokyo's metropolitan area as well because it obviously doesn't contain 42. 6 million which is the population of the entire Kanto region that includes several rural and mountainous settlements of North Kanto Region.

We can refer to the following urban density map-

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


The Pearl River Delta metropolitan area is then the only Super-Metropolis in the world!


----------



## Minato ku

What matter is not the density but the commute pattern.
Also the spacial organisation is important in my opinion, we cannot compare Paris with the Rhein Rurh, in one area a center clearly dominate (central Paris) the rest of the city revolve around this center and did grow because of this center while the second is made of several cities close to others.

It is the same for Tokyo comparated with Jakarta Bandung.
Kanagawa where is located Yokohama grew because of commute to central Tokyo.
Bandung did not grew because of commuting to Jakarta. Obviously the journey take three hours in trains and both cities are only connected by a single 2x2 motorway and few small roads.


----------



## Hebrewtext

*Tel Aviv -Yafo* 



some 10,000,000 live within 7000 sqm around the city. Tel Aviv-Jerusalem-Gaza and hundreds cities&towns more. 
11,000,000 we can add Haifa area to the north.





Tel Aviv - Jerusalem


----------



## spotila

I appreciate your passion for your city HT, but weren't you berated for these same claims in a few other threads ?


----------



## Hebrewtext

spotila said:


> I appreciate your passion for your city HT, but weren't you berated for these same claims in a few other threads ?


Israel is small and dense (total 20,000 sqm).
some 7.5 million live within a 8,000 sqm. and most around Tel Aviv .
another 4 million Palestinians live near by .


----------



## ganghui

*THE FIRST POST IS INCORRECT.*



megacity30 said:


> 1. Pearl River Delta Metropolitan Area / Zhusanjiao, China: *49 million*
> 
> Components: *Guangzhou*, *Shenzhen*, Dongguan, Foshan, Jiangmen, Zhongshan, Zhuhai, Huizhou, Qingyuan, Yangjiang and Zhaoqing
> 
> .....
> 
> 9. Shanghai, China: 23 million


If you include the whole Pearl River Delta, you must also include the whole Yangtze River Delta for Shanghai and the surroundings. This makes the Yangtze River Delta Metropolitan Area *LARGER *than the Pearl River Delta.

So, first place:

1. Yangtze Delta Metropolitan Area: *80 million*

Components: *Shanghai*, *Nanjing*, Hangzhou, Suzhou, Ningbo, Nantong, Wuxi, Changzhou, Zhongshan, Jiaxing, Zhenjiang, Huzhou, Shaoxing.

Please change first post.


----------



## Motul

I would say Bogota, Colombia is quite happening. It's not as hectic as other +8 million cities because it's well organized for a developing city, but it's still pretty vibrant and with great nightlife/arts/cultural scene.

I dont think it can be called a megacity just yet, but it's shaping itself up to become one :yes:


----------



## megacity30

Hebrewtext said:


> Israel is small and dense (total 20,000 sqm).
> some 7.5 million live within a 8,000 sqm. and most around Tel Aviv .
> another 4 million Palestinians live near by .


The official population of the Tel Aviv Metropolitan Area is 3,206,400 (3.2 million).

(1) Modi'in Maccabim Re'ut is included in Tel Aviv metropolitan area not for urban contiguity but for its daily commuting and is approximately midway between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. We don't have evidence of at least 15% inter-commuting with Jerusalem and is therefore considered its own metropolitan area.

(2) Netanya is included in Tel Aviv metropolitan area not for its urban contiguity, although it is nearly contiguous now with Herzliya, but for its daily commuting. Haifa is a much longer way away, and we don't have evidence of at least 15% inter-commuting with Haifa and is therefore considered its own metropolitan area.

(3) Ashdod is included in Tel Aviv metropolitan area not for its urban contiguity but for its daily commuting. Gaza is a much longer way away, and we don't have evidence of at least 15% inter-commuting with Gaza and is therefore considered its own metropolitan area.

Let's abide by one common definition for all metropolitan areas.

Please let us know if you have different commuter numbers because we cannot rely on urban contiguity here. A look at its zoomed-in satellite map and the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Aviv_Metropolitan_Area URL confirm that.


----------



## megacity30

ganghui said:


> *THE FIRST POST IS INCORRECT.*
> 
> If you include the whole Pearl River Delta, you must also include the whole Yangtze River Delta for Shanghai and the surroundings. This makes the Yangtze River Delta Metropolitan Area *LARGER *than the Pearl River Delta.
> 
> So, first place:
> 
> 1. Yangtze Delta Metropolitan Area: *80 million*
> 
> Components: *Shanghai*, *Nanjing*, Hangzhou, Suzhou, Ningbo, Nantong, Wuxi, Changzhou, Zhongshan, Jiaxing, Zhenjiang, Huzhou, Shaoxing.
> 
> Please change first post.


Minato Ku mentioned the fundamental aspect of a metropolitan area earlier in this thread as follows:

A megalopolis is a set of cities very close to each other.
A metropolitan area is based on commute.

In the first page of this thread we discussed the YRD Megalopolis:
There is a controlled Hukou system in all cities of the Yangtze River Delta region. Last year, Jiaxing and Cixi relaxed the criteria for qualified migrants. However, rural or less qualified migrants still lead a marginalized life without social benefits. Inter-city commutes, i.e. living in one city and working in another, is an exception. Each city is still a metropolitan area only in itself, even though satellite images show their urban peripheries are merging. 
Until the Shanghai Municipality and the provinces of Zhejiang and Jiangsu amend the Hukou system along the lines of the Dongguan province, this region will remain a megalopolis at best, and definitely not one metropolitan area. 

If the Hukou system is reformed drastically or abolished, enabling at least 15% unrestricted and daily inter-commuting for all residents in the YRD, this could well become the world's most populous metropolitan area, but not until then.


----------



## megacity30

Motul said:


> I would say Bogota, Colombia is quite happening. It's not as hectic as other +8 million cities because it's well organized for a developing city, but it's still pretty vibrant and with great nightlife/arts/cultural scene.
> 
> I dont think it can be called a megacity just yet, but it's shaping itself up to become one :yes:


Actually, Bogota and its 17 surrounding municipalities are presently estimated to contain between 8.4 million and 9.6 million (needs to be confirmed). The last official Census in the year 2005 declared a population of 7,883,838 (nearly 7.9 million people).

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

If we were to include its numerous commuter towns, it could be very close to being or already have become a mega-metropolitan area.

In South America, Lima (Peru) is also a potential candidate for becoming a mega-metropolitan area.


----------



## Motul

It doesnt really have the chaotic mega city feel tho, IMO.. Not like Mexico City and others, however its a nicely equipped city and well organized like I said. Missing a subway though..


----------



## musicalinstruments

Dhaka city is going to be most expensive city in the world.
which is situated in bangladesh


----------



## musicalinstruments

on the other hand it is the most powerful city with 18 core people


----------



## Motul

musicalinstruments said:


> Dhaka city is going to be most expensive city in the world.
> which is situated in bangladesh


How can such a poor city be the most expensive on earth.. How do it's people survive? :?


----------



## ganghui

megacity30 said:


> Minato Ku mentioned the fundamental aspect of a metropolitan area earlier in this thread as follows:
> 
> A megalopolis is a set of cities very close to each other.
> A metropolitan area is based on commute.
> 
> In the first page of this thread we discussed the YRD Megalopolis:
> There is a controlled Hukou system in all cities of the Yangtze River Delta region. Last year, Jiaxing and Cixi relaxed the criteria for qualified migrants. However, rural or less qualified migrants still lead a marginalized life without social benefits. Inter-city commutes, i.e. living in one city and working in another, is an exception. Each city is still a metropolitan area only in itself, even though satellite images show their urban peripheries are merging.
> Until the Shanghai Municipality and the provinces of Zhejiang and Jiangsu amend the Hukou system along the lines of the Dongguan province, this region will remain a megalopolis at best, and definitely not one metropolitan area.
> 
> If the Hukou system is reformed drastically or abolished, enabling at least 15% unrestricted and daily inter-commuting for all residents in the YRD, this could well become the world's most populous metropolitan area, but not until then.


 Political borders isn't the same as real borders. Its easy just to check Google Earth, and you will see that the YRD is more built together than the PRD. Your statement doesn't make sense.


----------



## Metro007

Hebrewtext said:


> *Tel Aviv -Yafo*
> some 10,000,000 live within 7000 sqm around the city. Tel Aviv-Jerusalem-Gaza and hundreds cities&towns more.
> 11,000,000 we can add Haifa area to the north.


Interesting! But i think it's a bit exagerated...the official numbers says 3,2 Mio in the metro-area. So it's seems to be very dense for a city of 400'000 (like around Amsterdam or Brussels?). But i think you really can't compare it with real megacities who have 10-35 Mio...


----------



## megacity30

the spliff fairy said:


> The problem with India is it's a democracy, - it's not that it's lacking in vision, governance, intent or money.
> 
> Building vast infrastructure projects means bulldozing through entire villages and towns, this takes time with compensation disputes, protests, putting through legislation, bureaucracy, and govt/ local council vote-courting etc. It's the same with any democracy.
> Just like how creating the world's largest airport in London can be cancelled due to a tiny village and its pub on the edge of the existing runways, the national highway network in India can be derailed by protesting farmers just on one single stretch. Even authoritarian China has problems, with the compensation culture there having become very lucrative, and an estimated 1 million demonstrations and riots every year.
> 
> - Just don't expect India, with such a vast, multitudinous population and requiring so many vast projects so quickly, to simply follow a China model when it's an entirely different set up, and one legally based on individual rights.


:applause:

The Spliff Fairy, your post here is laudable indeed!

Am not sure how you have such deep insight into India and China, but several urban demographers (and I) completely agree with you.

It is much easier and quicker to build infrastructure in an authoritarian or socialist country and much messier, albeit more humane, in a true democracy. India, being the world's most populous democracy, would have the problems compounded infinitely more.

All of today's developed nations are democracies as well, but their Government wield far more authority in making decisions for "the people's greater good."


----------



## FAAN

khoojyh said:


> except developed country.
> 
> I think China is the only developing country that forming world largest megalopolis in world which not only great in city population but also advance in infrastructure and living quality.


Brazil is always looking for ways to make quality of life to his people, even in big cities. So will one of the first emerging superpowers to become a developed country. Most districts of São Paulo has the European equivalent to the HDI, the same happens in other major cities such as Rio de Janeiro.:cheers:


----------



## megacity30

*Mexico City Hyper-Metropolitan Area: 21.2 million people*

(1) Mexico City (Ciudad de Mexico), founded in 1325 AD, contains 8,851,080 (8.85 million) people in 1,487 sq km (average density: 5952 people / sq km) as per Mexico's 2010 Census results. 

reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico_City%27s_boroughs

We can see Mexico City's 16 boroughs in its satellite view below:-











*Greater Mexico City / Mexico City Hyper-Metropolitan Area (Zona Metropolitana del Valle de México)*

Greater Mexico City is one of the instances where the official metropolitan area definitions actual match reality. After examining its satellite view in detail, I don't see any change is required. So the official definition is true and complete in this case. I'd congratulate the Federal authorities!

The Mexico City Hyper-Metropolitan Area is one of four hyper-metropolises in the Americas. It comprises the following three cities and 56 towns:-

(2) Cities of Ecatepec de Morelos, Nezahualcoyotl and Naucalpan de Juárez

(3) Towns of Acolman, Amecameca, Apaxco, Atenco, Atizapán de Zaragoza, Atlautla, Axapusco, Ayapango, Chalco, Chiautla, Chicoloapan, Chiconcuac, Chimalhuacán, Coacalco de Berriozábal, Cocotitlán, Coyotepec, Cuautitlán, Cuautitlán Izcalli, Ecatzingo, Huehuetoca, Hueypoxtla, Huixquilucan, Isidro Fabela, Ixtapaluca, Jaltenco, Jilotzingo, Juchitepec, La Paz, Melchor Ocampo, Nextlalplan, Nicolás Romero, Nopaltepec, Otumba, Ozumba, Papalotla, San Martín de las Pirámides, Tecámac, Temamatla, Temascalapa, Tenango del Aire, Teoloyucán, Teotihuacán, Tepetlaoxtoc, Tepetlixpa, Tepotzotlán, Texcoco, Tezoyuca, Tizayuca, Tlamanalco, Tlalnepantla de Baz, Tultepec, Tultitlán, Valle de Chalco Solidaridad, Villa del Carbón and Zumpango

(2) and (3) contain 12,312,146 people in 5859 sq km (average density: 2101 people / sq km).





















reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Mexico_City

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

Therefore, a total of 21,163,226 (21.2 million) people live in 7346 sq km (overall density: 2881 people / sq km). 
I'll update our list now.


----------



## Manila-X

Mexico City, New York and Sao Paulo are the 3 hyper-cities in The New World!


----------



## megacity30

Manila-X said:


> Mexico City, New York and Sao Paulo are the 3 hyper-cities in The New World!


And the Los Angeles hyper-city, containing the contiguous urban spread in the Counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Kern, San Diego and Ventura?


----------



## little universe

Found an interesting article titled How the rise of the megacity is changing the way we live from the Guardian...It sets Chinese City *Chengdu* as the main study case. 

Attached with the diagram showing *Chengdu's Tianfu Square Cityscape* as its background image. According to the source it gives, China's urban population will reach 1 billion by 2030 well above India's 590 million.

It predictes that *World's Top 5 Cities by GDP in 2025 *would be:

*1. New York

2. Tokyo

3. Shanghai

4. London

5. Beijing*


It also predictes that *World's Top 5 Cities by Population in 2025 *would be:

*1. Tokyo*

*2. Mumbai*

*3. Shanghai*

*4. Beijing*

*5. Delhi*


*>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SCROLL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>*

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Observer/Pix/pictures/2012/01/21/urban2.jpg


----------



## megacity30

little universe said:


> Found an interesting article titled How the rise of the megacity is changing the way we live from the Guardian...It sets Chinese City *Chengdu* as the main study case.
> 
> Attached with the diagram showing *Chengdu's Tianfu Square Cityscape* as its background image. According to the source it gives, China's urban population will reach 1 billion by 2030 well above India's 590 million.
> 
> It predictes that *World's Top 5 Cities by GDP in 2025 *would be:
> 
> *1. New York*
> 
> *2. Tokyo*
> 
> *3. Shanghai*
> 
> *4. London*
> 
> *5. Beijing*
> 
> 
> It also predictes that *World's Top 5 Cities by Population in 2025 *would be:
> 
> *1. Tokyo*
> 
> *2. Mumbai*
> 
> *3. Shanghai*
> 
> *4. Beijing*
> 
> *5. Delhi*
> 
> http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Observer/Pix/pictures/2012/01/21/urban2.jpg


Interesting article and truly beautiful picture of Chengdu's Tianfu Square Cityscape; thank you for this contribution, little universe.

A few comments on this article though- 

(1) Chengdu's metropolitan area contains 7,123,697 people in 2129 sq km. 
The remaining 6,923,928 people in 10,003 sq km that live in Chengdu 'city' are actually rural residents. The 'city' administrative limit is akin to 'state' in the USA and is not equivalent to a city as we know it. That does not qualify Chengdu as a mega-city yet; however, Chengdu will quite likely become a mega-city in 20 years.

reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu#Administrative_Divisions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China_by_population


(2) Based on this common misunderstanding about what a 'city' means in China, the concept of "221 cities containing over a million people and 23 cities containing over 5 million" is a huge exaggeration, even for me, where I am sometimes jocularly accused of being too liberal with metropolitan areas! 
There are *95 urban areas today* (references above) that contain over a million people in China. *140 million-plus urban areas seems more realistic by 2031.*

(3) In India, as per the 2011 Census, the number of urban areas containing over a million people increased from 35 (in the year 2001) to 53 (in the year 2011); an increase of over 51% in just 10 years! Even by conservative estimates, assuming growth slows down by over 25%, there will be at least 68 urban areas (or more likely, more) containing over a million people by 2021. By 2031, we could be looking at close to 90 (or more) million-plus urban areas. Let's remember *the population growth of all major Indian cities' cores is declining, and their city populations are either declining or showing minimal increase*, while their metropolitan areas are still burgeoning. 
In addition, as per the 2011 Census, *2774 brand-new towns were created in India in the past 10 years*!! These towns have formed either as erstwhile villages that merged into urban centers or as newly created centres of industry, education, services etc.
The past decade witnessed de-centralized urban growth in India on epic proportions.

reference: http://makanaka.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/indias-2011-census-a-population-turning-point/

The gap or difference between the urbanization in China and India is not as large as many people believe. China's authoritarian Government has enforced urban policy as well restricted flow of their citizens via Hukou, and have, as a result, created world-class urban areas. 
China's GDP (PPP) per capita is over twice that of India's. 
However, poverty exists on a massive scale in rural China and the non-registered urban residents.
India, being a huge and diverse democracy, faces continuous hurdles in its urban policy implementation from private residents, non-governmental groups, religious groups, environmentalists etc.

(4) "The World's Top 5 cities by population" list provided is not to be taken seriously; Delhi's urban area (21.7 million) is already more populous than Mumbai's (20.7 million) as per the 2011 Census. Also, the urban areas of Jakarta and Manila will continue to be larger than Shanghai and Beijing, even in the next 20 years, unless Hukou is abolished, and we start looking at them as Yangtze River Delta and Bohai Economic Rim respectively.

Again, Chongqing urban area contains 5.4 million people; it is not currently a mega-city.

(5) Many 10 million-plus urban areas are missing in the 'current mega-cities' list, such as:-
*Guangzhou, Jakarta, Seoul, Shenzhen, Tehran, Bangkok *etc.

By 2025, the number of 10-million-plus urban areas will probably be 65 and not 36 as mentioned in the article. We already have 38 as you can see in this thread's first post.


Both Mumbai's GDP prediction and Kinshasa's projected population seem credible. :cheers:


----------



## chornedsnorkack

chornedsnorkack said:


> Yes. 23 millions.
> 
> But that number includes Chongming County. Population density 594 per square km. 700 000 people in countryside there.
> 
> What about Jinshan? 1250 people per square km. 9 towns and 1 subdistrict. How much of Jinshan is a part of an urban area? That of Shanghai?


Any comments on that?


----------



## Manila-X

little universe said:


>


Ironically, Jakarta is not listed.


----------



## Manila-X

megacity30 said:


> And the Los Angeles hyper-city, containing the contiguous urban spread in the Counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Kern, San Diego and Ventura?


LA is questionable since it's greater population is 17,786,419. You need at least 20 million for it to be hyper-city.


----------



## megacity30

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chornedsnorkack*
> _Yes. 23 millions.
> 
> But that number includes Chongming County. Population density 594 per square km. 700 000 people in countryside there.
> 
> What about Jinshan? 1250 people per square km. 9 towns and 1 subdistrict. How much of Jinshan is a part of an urban area? That of Shanghai?_






chornedsnorkack said:


> Any comments on that?


What is the question and who is it for? :?


----------



## megacity30

Manila-X said:


> Ironically, Jakarta is not listed.


Yes, and many other 10-million-plus urban areas are also not listed there, such as *Guangzhou, Seoul, Shenzhen, Tehran, Bangkok *etc

There are some other errors in that article as well which I mentioned earlier. :cheers:


----------



## megacity30

Manila-X said:


> LA is questionable since it's greater population is 17,786,419. You need at least 20 million for it to be hyper-city.


I truly appreciate your input and participation in these discussions. 

However, the contiguous urban spread in the following US counties does contain 21 million people today, and I'll provide more details next weekend:
Counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Kern and Ventura.


----------



## chornedsnorkack

megacity30 said:


> [/I]
> 
> What is the question and who is it for? :?


Jinshan district has population density of 1250 persons per square km, and contains one subdistrict and 9 towns.

Do the 732 000 residents of Jinshan district include any people who do not live in Shanghai city because they live either in countryside outside Shanghai city, or else live in some small town separate from Shanghai city?

The question is for you or anyone else who feels qualified to respond.


----------



## megacity30

RaySthlm said:


> Bangkok has 12 177 000 (1 juli 2009) according to Wiki. Same source says that Jakarta has only 8 million. I thought Jakarta was the most populated city in South east asia.


Jakarta's official metropolitan area (Jabotabek - Cirangkarta) contains over 33 million people today; it's the world's third-most populous.

Reference: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1448974&page=10


----------



## megacity30

chornedsnorkack said:


> Jinshan district has population density of 1250 persons per square km, and contains one subdistrict and 9 towns.
> 
> Do the 732 000 residents of Jinshan district include any people who do not live in Shanghai city because they live either in countryside outside Shanghai city, or else live in some small town separate from Shanghai city?
> 
> The question is for you or anyone else who feels qualified to respond.


That is a good question, indeed. The south-western part of the following satellite map shows Jinshan district; as you can see, most of the population is concentrated and urban. Presently, Jinshan district has been included in Shanghai's metropolitan area. Chongming is still largely rural and has been excluded from Shanghai's metropolitan area.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/Shanghai_Landsat-7_2005-08-15.jpg 

However, I am not the final authority on these matters, and seek input from all informed individuals.


----------



## Manila-X

megacity30 said:


> I truly appreciate your input and participation in these discussions.
> 
> However, the contiguous urban spread in the following US counties does contain 21 million people today, and I'll provide more details next weekend:
> Counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Kern and Ventura.


It is also a question if San Diego is part of the Greater LA metro area or is on it's own. But Southern California can create one large hyper-city.


----------



## megacity30

*Brihan Mumbai*

The Mumbai Metropolitan Area (MMA) contains the following three urban components:-

(1) Urban Core: The City of Brihan Mumbai (Greater Bombay)

(2) Urban Area: including the Inner Ring of MMR (Mumbai Metropolitan Region)

(3) Metropolitan Area: including the Outer Ring of MMR (Mumbai Metropolitan Region)


(1) The City of *Brihan Mumbai* (Greater Bombay): Developing since 2000 BC, Brihan Mumbai (Greater Bombay) contains 12,478,447 people in 603 sq km as per the 2011 Census. However, this area comprises 104 sq km of the forest of Sanjay Gandhi National Park including its protected Buddhist caves. Therefore, 12,478,447 (12.5 million) people live in 499 sq km having an average population density of 25,007 people / sq km. 

reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumbai

The following 10-year-old political map shows the City and the forest:-










source: http://www.archidev.org/IMG/jpg/carte_mumbai1.jpg


(2) The Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR), administered by the MMRDA (development authority) since 1974, can be divided into an inner ring and an outer ring. The inner ring is the densely populated contiguous urban area surrounding Brihan Mumbai.

reference- http://censusindia.gov.in/2011-prov-results/paper2/data_files/India2/Table_3_PR_UA_Citiees_1Lakh_and_Above.pdf


Next we'll discuss its Urban Area and then its Metropolitan Area.


----------



## Manila-X

RaySthlm said:


> Bangkok has 12 177 000 (1 juli 2009) according to Wiki. Same source says that Jakarta has only 8 million. I thought Jakarta was the most populated city in South east asia.


There has been a debate between Greater Jakarta and Greater Manila as the largest in South East Asia.

But not BKK.


----------



## little universe

megacity30 said:


> Interesting article and truly beautiful picture of Chengdu's Tianfu Square Cityscape; thank you for this contribution, little universe.
> 
> A few comments on this article though-
> 
> (1) Chengdu's metropolitan area contains 7,123,697 people in 2129 sq km.
> The remaining 6,923,928 people in 10,003 sq km that live in Chengdu 'city' are actually rural residents. The 'city' administrative limit is akin to 'state' in the USA and is not equivalent to a city as we know it. That does not qualify Chengdu as a mega-city yet; however, Chengdu will quite likely become a mega-city in 20 years.
> 
> reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu#Administrative_Divisions
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China_by_population
> 
> 
> (2) Based on this common misunderstanding about what a 'city' means in China, the concept of "221 cities containing over a million people and 23 cities containing over 5 million" is a huge exaggeration, even for me, where I am sometimes jocularly accused of being too liberal with metropolitan areas!
> There are *95 urban areas today* (references above) that contain over a million people in China. *140 million-plus urban areas seems more realistic by 2031.*
> 
> (3) In India, as per the 2011 Census, the number of urban areas containing over a million people increased from 35 (in the year 2001) to 53 (in the year 2011); an increase of over 51% in just 10 years! Even by conservative estimates, assuming growth slows down by over 25%, there will be at least 68 urban areas (or more likely, more) containing over a million people by 2021. By 2031, we could be looking at close to 90 (or more) million-plus urban areas. Let's remember *the population growth of all major Indian cities' cores is either declining or showing minimal increase*, while their metropolitan areas are still burgeoning.
> In addition, as per the 2011 Census, *2774 brand-new towns were created in India in the past 10 years*!! These towns have formed either as erstwhile villages that merged into urban centers or as newly created centres of industry, education, services etc.
> The past decade witnessed de-centralized urban growth in India on epic proportions.
> 
> reference: http://makanaka.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/indias-2011-census-a-population-turning-point/
> 
> The gap or difference between the urbanization in China and India is not as large as many people believe. China's authoritarian Government has enforced urban policy as well restricted flow of their citizens via Hukou, and have, as a result, created world-class urban areas.
> China's GDP (PPP) per capita is over twice that of India's.
> However, poverty exists on a massive scale in rural China and the non-registered urban residents.
> India, being a huge and diverse democracy, faces continuous hurdles in its urban policy implementation from private residents, non-governmental groups, religious groups, environmentalists etc.
> 
> (4) "The World's Top 5 cities by population" list provided is not to be taken seriously; Delhi's urban area (21.7 million) is already more populous than Mumbai's (20.7 million) as per the 2011 Census. Also, the urban areas of Jakarta and Manila will continue to be larger than Shanghai and Beijing, even in the next 20 years, unless Hukou is abolished, and we start looking at them as Yangtze River Delta and Bohai Economic Rim respectively.
> 
> Again, Chongqing urban area contains 5.4 million people; it is not currently a mega-city.
> 
> (5) Many 10 million-plus urban areas are missing in the 'current mega-cities' list, such as:-
> *Guangzhou, Jakarta, Seoul, Shenzhen, Tehran, Bangkok *etc.
> 
> By 2025, the number of 10-million-plus urban areas will probably be 65 and not 36 as mentioned in the article. We already have 38 as you can see in this thread's first post.
> 
> 
> Both Mumbai's GDP prediction and Kinshasa's projected population seem credible. :cheers:


^^

Thanks for providing your correction to that particular article. I was impressed by your wide knowledge about world's Megacities. 
The Guardian  always tends to be Left-wing thus a bit too Sinophile i suppose. :lol: I should read the other British Newspaper The Telegraph more frequent in order to make my political view more neutral. :lol:

*Happy Lunar New Year* to Everyone Here!


----------



## megacity30

little universe said:


> ^^
> 
> Thanks for providing your correction to that particular article. I was impressed by your wide knowledge about world's Megacities.
> The Guardian always tends to be Left-wing thus a bit too Sinophile i suppose. :lol: I should read the other British Newspaper The Telegraph more frequent in order to make my political view more neutral. :lol:
> 
> *Happy Lunar New Year* to Everyone Here!


Happy Lunar Year to you too, little universe! 

Please continue providing critical comments and contributions to this thread...


----------



## megacity30

(2) *Mumbai Urban Area* / Conurbation: A *Hyper-city of 20.8 million people in an area of 1219.75 sq km!*!! :nuts:

The following four cities and four towns comprise the densely populated urban area contiguous with Brihan Mumbai (area in sq km and density in people per sq km):-

(a) Metropolitan City of Thane: 2,486,941 (population), 147 (area), 16,918 (density)

(b) Metropolitan City of Kalyan-Dombivali: 1,246,381 (population), 137.15 (area), 9,088 (density) 

(c) Metropolitan City of Vasai-Virar: 1,221,233 (population), 105 (area), 11,614 (density)

(d) Metropolitan City of Navi Mumbai (New Bombay): 1,119,477 (population), 163 (area), 6,868 (density) 

(e) City of Mira-Bhayandar: 814,655 (population), 88.75 (area), 9,179 (population)

(f) City of Bhiwandi: 737,411 (population), 28.31 (area), 26,048 (density) 

(g) City of Ulhasnagar: 506,937 (population), 27.54 (area), 18,407 (density)

(h) Town of Panvel: 285,058 (population), 24 (area), 11,877 (density)

*Hyper-City* 
population: *20,796,540*
area: *1219.75 sq km*
density: 17,050 sq km


(3) *Mumbai Metropolitan Area (MMA): Hyper-Metropolitan Area of 21.8 million people*

The towns of Ambernath (population: 254,003), Badlapur (population: 175,516), Karjat, Palghar, Boisar, Tarapur, Dahanu Road, Khopoli, Shedung, Taloja, Patalganga, Nagothane, Roha, Rasayani, Khalapur, Murbad, Kasar, Titwala, Asangaon, Uran, Nhava-Sheva-JNPT, Pen, Alibag, and Matheran constitute the commuter towns in the MMA. 

The MMRDA (Mumbai Metropolitan Area) also includes 900 urbanizing villages, but they are primarily rural.

The following satellite map of the MMA is shown below; pink-purple color indicates urbanized area and shading indicates density:

http://geology.com/world-cities/mumbai-india.jpg


----------



## the spliff fairy

great site on urbanism

http://urban-age.net/


----------



## oliver999

megacity30 said:


> Interesting article and truly beautiful picture of Chengdu's Tianfu Square Cityscape; thank you for this contribution, little universe.
> 
> A few comments on this article though-
> 
> (1) Chengdu's metropolitan area contains 7,123,697 people in 2129 sq km.
> The remaining 6,923,928 people in 10,003 sq km that live in Chengdu 'city' are actually rural residents. The 'city' administrative limit is akin to 'state' in the USA and is not equivalent to a city as we know it. That does not qualify Chengdu as a mega-city yet; however, Chengdu will quite likely become a mega-city in 20 years.
> 
> reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu#Administrative_Divisions
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China_by_population
> 
> 
> (2) Based on this common misunderstanding about what a 'city' means in China, the concept of "221 cities containing over a million people and 23 cities containing over 5 million" is a huge exaggeration, even for me, where I am sometimes jocularly accused of being too liberal with metropolitan areas!
> There are *95 urban areas today* (references above) that contain over a million people in China. *140 million-plus urban areas seems more realistic by 2031.*
> 
> (3) In India, as per the 2011 Census, the number of urban areas containing over a million people increased from 35 (in the year 2001) to 53 (in the year 2011); an increase of over 51% in just 10 years! Even by conservative estimates, assuming growth slows down by over 25%, there will be at least 68 urban areas (or more likely, more) containing over a million people by 2021. By 2031, we could be looking at close to 90 (or more) million-plus urban areas. Let's remember *the population growth of all major Indian cities' cores is either declining or showing minimal increase*, while their metropolitan areas are still burgeoning.
> In addition, as per the 2011 Census, *2774 brand-new towns were created in India in the past 10 years*!! These towns have formed either as erstwhile villages that merged into urban centers or as newly created centres of industry, education, services etc.
> The past decade witnessed de-centralized urban growth in India on epic proportions.
> 
> reference: http://makanaka.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/indias-2011-census-a-population-turning-point/
> 
> The gap or difference between the urbanization in China and India is not as large as many people believe. China's authoritarian Government has enforced urban policy as well restricted flow of their citizens via Hukou, and have, as a result, created world-class urban areas.
> China's GDP (PPP) per capita is over twice that of India's.
> However, poverty exists on a massive scale in rural China and the non-registered urban residents.
> India, being a huge and diverse democracy, faces continuous hurdles in its urban policy implementation from private residents, non-governmental groups, religious groups, environmentalists etc.
> 
> (4) "The World's Top 5 cities by population" list provided is not to be taken seriously; Delhi's urban area (21.7 million) is already more populous than Mumbai's (20.7 million) as per the 2011 Census. Also, the urban areas of Jakarta and Manila will continue to be larger than Shanghai and Beijing, even in the next 20 years, unless Hukou is abolished, and we start looking at them as Yangtze River Delta and Bohai Economic Rim respectively.
> 
> Again, Chongqing urban area contains 5.4 million people; it is not currently a mega-city.
> 
> (5) Many 10 million-plus urban areas are missing in the 'current mega-cities' list, such as:-
> *Guangzhou, Jakarta, Seoul, Shenzhen, Tehran, Bangkok *etc.
> 
> By 2025, the number of 10-million-plus urban areas will probably be 65 and not 36 as mentioned in the article. We already have 38 as you can see in this thread's first post.
> 
> 
> Both Mumbai's GDP prediction and Kinshasa's projected population seem credible. :cheers:


chinese cities have very little surburb earas, from very urban eara(sksycrapers,hotels,cinimas) to rural eara only takes 5 minutes ride. but chinese cities has largest city centers.while US cities city center is very small, just several skyscrapers,then miles and miles town houses.


----------



## Kenwen

Sorry, but from the google earth night image, Shanghai and Beijing are by far much larger than Manila and Jakarta. And the pearl river delta region light area is already as big as Tokyo metro.


----------



## julesstoop

Might the reason be that there are simply more streetlights?


----------



## megacity30

Kenwen said:


> Sorry, but from the google earth night image, Shanghai and Beijing are by far much larger than Manila and Jakarta. And the pearl river delta region light area is already as big as Tokyo metro.


The metropolitan area and population of Jakarta is substantially greater than Shanghai, Beijing and Manila as you can see below; in fact, Jakarta's metropolitan area (Jabotabek - Cirangkarta) is the third-most-populous on Earth today:-

*Metropolitan Area in sq km* *(population in parentheses):*

*(1) Jakarta*: *11,100.185 (33,450,470)*

references: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1448974&page=10

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1448974&page=11


*(2) Manila: 5510.63 (25,219,785)*

references: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Manila

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1448974&page=12


*(3) Shanghai: 5155.01 (22,315,426)*

reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_administrative_divisions_of_Shanghai


*(4) Beijing: 5669.9 (16,803,000)*

reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing#Administrative_divisions


-The Shanghai metropolitan area has the smallest metropolitan area among the four.

-However, Beijing metropolitan area's population (and density) is less than that of Manila's and Shanghai's. 

-Manila metropolitan area is more populous and has a larger footprint than Shanghai metropolitan area.


At the same time, I agree Zhusanjiao (PRD) metropolitan area is over 15000 sq km and is larger than both Jakarta and Manila. Greater Tokyo Area is 13,500 sq km. In fact, the Zhusanjiao (PRD) metropolitan area has the most populous metropolitan area in the world.


----------



## Manila-X

Kenwen said:


> Sorry, but from the google earth night image, Shanghai and Beijing are by far much larger than Manila and Jakarta. And the pearl river delta region light area is already as big as Tokyo metro.


The Pearl River Delta region still has its pocket of rural areas in between large cities especially between Guangzhou and Shenzhen.

As for Manila and Jakarta it counts both area and population and not just urban development.

Shanghai may have more high-rises but it does not mean it is larger than Jakarta which is mostly low-rise with a high-rise downtown core.


----------



## Manila-X

Like I said earlier, Jakarta despite its large population or area does not feel like a large city at all but a *BIG VILLAGE*!


----------



## little universe

oliver999 said:


> chinese cities have very little surburb earas, from very urban eara(sksycrapers,hotels,cinimas) to rural eara only takes 5 minutes ride. but chinese cities has largest city centers.while US cities city center is very small, just several skyscrapers,then miles and miles town houses.


^^

Australian cities are the same! Small downtown and huge suburb...Melbourne's Metropolitan Area is even larger than Shanghai, all thanks to an ocean of houses!!! :lol: Good for living though! 
Planning and building compact Chinese Cities is our responsibilty and obligation to the rest of the world. It's the only way we can secure enough farmlands for agricultural production to be able to feed the 1.35 billion population!



megacity30 said:


> At the same time, I agree Zhusanjiao (PRD) metropolitan area is over 15000 sq km and is larger than both Jakarta and Manila. Greater Tokyo Area is 13,500 sq km. In fact, the Zhusanjiao (PRD) metropolitan area has the most populous metropolitan area in the world.


^^
The Pearl River Delta Metropolitan Area is indeed massive and impressive! And the Core Cities are linked by either subways or High Speed Trains.

For the Yangtze River Delta Region, there's not much Spare Lands left between Shanghai Metropolitan Area and its neighbouring City Suzhou if you have a look at google earth. Shanghai already stretched Subway Line 11 to its border with Kunshan City(a subdivision of Suzhou) and will connect with the Proposed Suzhou Metro Line 3 in the near future. The two Giant Cities would eventually merge together in a way even bigger than Tokyo-Yokohama Metropilitan Area!


----------



## Kenwen

Just check the google satelite map man, I'm pretty sure Beijing and Shanghai is way much larger than Manila or Jakarta, very obvious, Manila is like 1 third the size of Beijing. Beijing has 6 ring road, which within 5th ring road are all built up. Manila is slightly smaller than Shenzhen. Actually, Manila and Jakarta population density is way denser than city like Beijing and Shanghai, that's why they are smaller , but has a bigger populations.

I don't care about Metropolitan area, it doesn't mean that they are all built up, there are farms and villages within metropolitan area. I only check the continuous built up areas where there are city like houses, flat, street, motorways, not village like compound, otherwise the whole zhejiang, jiangsu province is a metro pol by that standard.

There's a mapping thread within the citytalk section, go have a look in there, thats how people truly define how big a city is. There's also the map of Pearl river delta, which is as big as Chicago sprawl.


----------



## Manila-X

Kenwen said:


> Just check the google satelite map man, I'm pretty sure Beijing and Shanghai is way much larger than Manila or Jakarta, very obvious, Manila is like 1 third the size of Beijing. Beijing has 6 ring road, which within 5th ring road are all built up. Manila is slightly smaller than Shenzhen. Actually, Manila and Jakarta population density is way denser than city like Beijing and Shanghai, that's why they are smaller , but has a bigger populations.
> 
> I don't care about Metropolitan area, it doesn't mean that they are all built up, there are farms and villages within metropolitan area. I only check the continuous built up areas where there are city like houses, flat, street, motorways, not village like compound, otherwise the whole zhejiang, jiangsu province is a metro pol by that standard.
> 
> There's a mapping thread within the citytalk section, go have a look in there, thats how people truly define how big a city is. There's also the map of Pearl river delta, which is as big as Chicago sprawl.


That image of Metro Manila isn't accurate since the are already urban / population built-ups on the unmarked areas.

Beijing has 6 ring roads but Metro Manila also has 6 *circumferential highways* and the areas within these highways are build up. And its geographical layout is not suitable for ring roads.


----------



## anakngpasig

Kenwen said:


> Just check the google satelite map man, I'm pretty sure Beijing and Shanghai is way much larger than Manila or Jakarta, very obvious, Manila is like 1 third the size of Beijing. Beijing has 6 ring road, which within 5th ring road are all built up. Manila is slightly smaller than Shenzhen. Actually, Manila and Jakarta population density is way denser than city like Beijing and Shanghai, that's why they are smaller , but has a bigger populations.
> 
> I don't care about Metropolitan area, it doesn't mean that they are all built up, there are farms and villages within metropolitan area. I only check the continuous built up areas where there are city like houses, flat, street, motorways, not village like compound, otherwise the whole zhejiang, jiangsu province is a metro pol by that standard.
> 
> There's a mapping thread within the citytalk section, go have a look in there, thats how people truly define how big a city is. There's also the map of Pearl river delta, which is as big as Chicago sprawl.


the reason why Manila packs so many people in a small area because many Filipinos don't usually move out even after they're married and have families of their own.

this is not a question of which sprawl is bigger but a question of which city has a larger population.

in Manila, one house may contain two, three, or even four families. I know it's crazy but that's how most Filipino families like to live. this is the reason why Philippine cities are not sprawled.

a 1,000 sq meter house may be bigger in area but if there are only four people living in it, *it is smaller*, population-wise, than a 100 sq meter house with 15 people in it, noh?


----------



## pesto

Same in California, from Stockton to Milpitas to Daly City: you can never tell how many Filipinos live in a house because there's constant movement in and out from all over the Bay area, SoCal and the Philippines. Great for keeping a party going.


----------



## spotila

Ah that yucky older version of my Chicago map - use this one instead


----------



## Manila-X

anakngpasig said:


> the reason why Manila packs so many people in a small area because many Filipinos don't usually move out even after they're married and have families of their own.
> 
> this is not a question of which sprawl is bigger but a question of which city has a larger population.
> 
> in Manila, one house may contain two, three, or even four families. I know it's crazy but that's how most Filipino families like to live. this is the reason why Philippine cities are not sprawled.
> 
> a 1,000 sq meter house may be bigger in area but if there are only four people living in it, *it is smaller*, population-wise, than a 100 sq meter house with 15 people in it, noh?


Most Philippine cities are not sprawled but Metro Manila is.


----------



## chornedsnorkack

How do you tell apart densely settled but rural countryside from suburban sprawl in densely settled ricegrowing plains of South and East Asia?

Out of the population of Bangladesh, how many live in countryside and how many in small and midsize towns separate from Dhaca? What is the area of Dhaca, and what is the population?


----------



## anakngpasig

Manila-X said:


> Most Philippine cities are not sprawled but Metro Manila is.


but not as sprawled as cities in Australia and the USA. it's mind-boggling how 25 million people could actually fit in just about 5,500 sq km; 12 million of whom live in just about 640 sq km urban core. 

it's like putting 90% of Malaysia's people in an island the size of Bali :lol: :nuts:


----------



## megacity30

the spliff fairy said:


> great site on urbanism
> 
> http://urban-age.net/


Yes, it's an interesting and resourceful website on urbanism.
Thanks, 'the spliff fairy'! 

Although their assortment of cities is limited and some data is now obsolete, they do have a wealth of insight and data provided therein.

I'll link to it as a reference for some future investigations.


----------



## the spliff fairy

^ you should contribute to the site


----------



## megacity30

oliver999 said:


> chinese cities have very little surburb earas, from very urban eara(sksycrapers,hotels,cinimas) to rural eara only takes 5 minutes ride. but chinese cities has largest city centers.while US cities city center is very small, just several skyscrapers,then miles and miles town houses.


US urban areas, in general, are the world's most suburban and sparsely-populated.


----------



## megacity30

Manila-X said:


> The Pearl River Delta region still has its pocket of rural areas in between large cities especially between Guangzhou and Shenzhen.
> 
> As for Manila and Jakarta it counts both area and population and not just urban development.
> 
> Shanghai may have more high-rises but it does not mean it is larger than Jakarta which is mostly low-rise with a high-rise downtown core.


I don't see any rural area pockets between Guangzhou and Shenzhen; the only gaps there are the hills and the distributaries of the Pearl River. 
Please refer to Spotila's urban area map of the Zhusanjiao Super-City linked below.

http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/5228/prd100.jpg


Jakarta is rather like a more populous version of Los Angeles; they are both multi-core urban areas connected by massive road network and dense and contiguous low-rises and mid-rises.


----------



## megacity30

little universe said:


> ^^
> 
> Australian cities are the same! Small downtown and huge suburb...Melbourne's Metropolitan Area is even larger than Shanghai, all thanks to an ocean of houses!!! :lol: Good for living though!
> Planning and building compact Chinese Cities is our responsibilty and obligation to the rest of the world. It's the only way we can secure enough farmlands for agricultural production to be able to feed the 1.35 billion population!


You're quite right, little universe. Australian metropolitan areas are probably the second-most sparsely populated in the world. And that probably adds to the livability factor as well. However, life can also be more convenient (and safe, depending on where you are) and ecologically-friendly in more densely-settled areas. As a result, wealthy Asian cities consume far less resources than cities in Australia (or the USA) of equivalent size.



> ^^
> The Pearl River Delta Metropolitan Area is indeed massive and impressive! And the Core Cities are linked by either subways or High Speed Trains.
> 
> For the Yangtze River Delta Region, there's not much Spare Lands left between Shanghai Metropolitan Area and its neighbouring City Suzhou if you have a look at google earth. Shanghai already stretched Subway Line 11 to its border with Kunshan City(a subdivision of Suzhou) and will connect with the Proposed Suzhou Metro Line 3 in the near future. The two Giant Cities would eventually merge together in a way even bigger than Tokyo-Yokohama Metropilitan Area!


Agreed. However, there would need to be some Hukou reform, or at least a political agreement between Shanghai and Suzhou for this to become possible. Hukou severely restricts daily inter-city commuting based on residence and work, and marginalizes "temporary" Chinese residents.


----------



## little universe

megacity30 said:


> Kenwen and little universe, as stated earlier, that article is erroneous.
> 
> A credible source is data published by PWC (Price-Waterhouse-Cooper) and OECD in 2009, and presented in wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_GDP)
> 
> *World GDP Rank 25. Shanghai (China): US$ 233 billion*
> 
> *World GDP Rank 29. Mumbai (India): US$ 209 billion*
> 
> *World GDP Rank 37. Delhi (India): US$ 167 billion*
> 
> *World GDP Rank 38. Beijing (China): US$ 166 billion
> *
> As you can see, there really isn't much "catching up" to do in GDP or GDP(PPP)-per-capita as their populations are equivalent as well.


^^
I was actually shocked you cited that source! *That article from wikipedia is not reliable at all!*

If you have some basic knowledge on economy and willing to do some more research on those figures, *you will find out the figures for indian cities in that table shows were measured by GDP (by PPP), while the Chinese Cities' figures were Measured by GDP (Nominal), You do know that there is a huge difference between GDP (by PPP) and GDP (Nominal), do you? GDP by PPP usually appears much bigger than GDP(Nominal) when it comes to developing countries like China and India in Asia. * If by GDP (Nominal), i'd say Mumbai and Delhi would only had GDP (Nominal) around about US$ 100 billion and US$ 80 billion that year(or even smaller?), way much smaller than Shanghai and Beijing's output that year. The same thing happens to Hong Kong, the table also shows the city's GDP (by PPP) not GDP (Nominal), the city's GDP (Nominal) was US$ 225 billion in 2010 while US$ 326 billion when measured by GDP (by PPP) that year. I haven't confirmed the other cities' figures, probably by different measurments thus not reliable as well. One thing you have to know is that Shanghai's Total GDP (Nominal) had already surpassed Hong Kong's by the end of 2009, everyone in China knows that, cs the media had intensive report about that. And just let you know that Beijing's Total GDP would also outnumber Hong Kong's by the end of this year by economists' prediction!

I am not the person initially trying to compare figures between cities from different countries(China vs India)...you got the wrong person...since you put me through this, i have to make sure those figures are correct and objective. :cheers:


----------



## megacity30

little universe said:


> ^^
> I was actually shocked you cited that source! *That article from wikipedia is not reliable at all!*
> 
> If you have some basic knowledge on economy and willing to do some more research on those figures, *you will find out the figures for indian cities in that table shows were measured by GDP (by PPP), while the Chinese Cities' figures were Measured by GDP (Nominal), You do know that there is a huge difference between GDP (by PPP) and GDP (Nominal), do you? GDP by PPP usually appears much bigger than GDP(Nominal) when it comes to developing countries like China and India in Asia. *If by GDP (Nominal), i'd say Mumbai and Delhi would only had GDP (Nominal) around about US$ 100 billion and US$ 80 billion that year(or even smaller?), way much smaller than Shanghai and Beijing's output that year. The same thing happens to Hong Kong, the table also shows the city's GDP (by PPP) not GDP (Nominal), the city's GDP (Nominal) was US$ 225 billion in 2010 while US$ 326 billion when measured by GDP (by PPP) that year. I haven't confirmed the other cities' figures, probably by different measurments thus not reliable as well. One thing you have to know is that Shanghai's Total GDP (Nominal) had already surpass Hong Kong's by the end of 2009, everyone in China knows that, cs the media had intensive report about that. And Let you know that Beijing's Total GDP would also outnumber Hong Kong's by the end of this year by economists' prediction!
> 
> I am not the person initially trying to compare figures between cities from different countries(China vs India)...you got the wrong person...since you put me through this, i have to make sure those figures are correct and objective. :cheers:


littleuniverse, I never cite a wikipedia source without checking out its references. Please examine *Table 3.5* in the following reference (that's referred in Wikipedia):

https://www.ukmediacentre.pwc.com/imagelibrary/downloadMedia.ashx?MediaDetailsID=1562

This PWC report was published in the UK and is referred to by many software and governmental companies as well as market research firms because PWC is one of the world's leading firm in this field.

*All the GDP figures published in this report are PPP.*


----------



## little universe

^^
*That Report is not reliable at all! It largely underestimated Chinese City's GDP(PPP) Figures!!! However, the Indian Figures are about right. *

Check out the other wikipedia Source (List of Chinese administrative divisions by GDP(Both Nominal and PPP) in different years), *it clearly shows that the figures you've cited for Mainland Chinese Cities are Nominal GDP figures not GDP by PPP! For that saying the PWC report from UK about Chinese Cities is totally wrong! And it made huge mistakes by comparing world's cities in different measurements! *



megacity30 said:


> ......
> China's GDP (PPP) per capita is over twice that of India's.
> ......


^^
I've also noticed what you've recognised by yourself and stated a few days ago as reads above ^^

And then i check the wikepedia sources of each of Shanghai and Mumbai's GDP per Capital by PPP in 2010, those give me the figures of *US$ 19,279* and *US$ 9,234*.
That should match with your logic about China's GDP (PPP) per capita is over twice that of India's.....thus China's Financial Capital's GDP (PPP) per capita is also over twice that of India's Financial Capital's. By konwledging of those two cities' similar population size, how could Mumbai's Total GDP (by PPP) possible almost equal Shanghai's?????? What is even more ridiculous is that someone suggesting that Delhi's total GDP (by PPP) outnumbered Beijing's!!!!!! Pls do have some Common Sense!!!!!! :lol:

*If measured by by PPP, Shanghai and Beijing had US$ 435 billion and US$ 357.6 billion seperately for the year 2010 BTW!* *Those numbers would be at least twice bigger than Mumbai's and Delhi's seperately!!!* *If by Nominal GDP, the Gap would be even bigger!* :cheers:

*By that GDP(PPP) Measure, Shanghai probably had already surpassed Osaka, Hong Kong and Seoul, is now holding the Second Place in Asia only after Tokyo!!!*

There's always some deliberate underestimating, prejudice and misleading towards China among western research institutions' Reports merely because China is ruling by a communist party. Sorry no offense.

*Meanwhile, i'm not blaming you, you are one of the innocent victims like many others. you were misleaded by the wrong source from that wrong vicious report!*


----------



## megacity30

the spliff fairy said:


> ^ you should contribute to the site


I'd love to, but I still have a lot to learn


----------



## syahdila ndut

Manila-X said:


> Like I said earlier, Jakarta despite its large population or area does not feel like a large city at all but a *BIG VILLAGE*!


*Welcome to "THE BIG VILLAGE" of South East Asia*


eurico said:


> *Welcome to "THE BIG VILLAGE" of South East Asia*
> 
> This picture only covering projects at *Jakarta's Golden Triangle*, and there's a lot of other projects outside Jakarta's Golden Triangle, such as TB. Simatupang Street etc.
> 
> *Original Size:*
> 
> 
> Uploaded with ImageShack.us
> 
> thank's to *Dazon* for made this picture





eurico said:


> and here's picture of the location of some *Supertall and Megatall at Jakarta*
> 
> *Original Size:*
> 
> 
> Uploaded with ImageShack.us
> 
> well some of them are still unknown for the exact height
> 
> thank's for *dazon* for creating this image


----------



## Traceparts

megacity30 said:


> littleuniverse, I never cite a wikipedia source without checking out its references. Please examine *Table 3.5* in the following reference (that's referred in Wikipedia):
> 
> https://www.ukmediacentre.pwc.com/imagelibrary/downloadMedia.ashx?MediaDetailsID=1562
> 
> This PWC report was published in the UK and is referred to by many software and governmental companies as well as market research firms because PWC is one of the world's leading firm in this field.
> 
> *All the GDP figures published in this report are PPP.*


then the chinese cities GDP(ppp) figure provided by PWC are all wrong.
usually chinese govenment only provide GDP(nominal) number. PWC maybe falsely quoted as GDP(PPP).


----------



## Motul

Bogota, Colombia (pop. 8 million):

GDP nominal: $82 billion ($10,100)
GDP PPP: $124 billion ($15,500)


----------



## little universe

I was browsing BBC website today and found out this interesting article, The world's biggest cities: How do you measure them?...i feel like to share it with you guys here on this thread. 

The article quoted the research result from an american professor arguing that Shanghai only has 16 million population rather than 20 million or more as we all believed. It's just his opinion, isn't it? My city issue mentor, megacity30? :lol:


----------



## megacity30

little universe said:


> I was browsing BBC website today and found out this interesting article, The world's biggest cities: How do you measure them?...i feel like to share it with you guys here on this thread.
> 
> The article quoted the research result from an american professor arguing that Shanghai only has 16 million population rather than 20 million or more as we all believed. It's just his opinion, isn't it? My city issue mentor, megacity30? :lol:


Thank you for sharing this interesting and contemporary article, little universe.

Ruth Alexander's points are universally valid; in the 21st Century, we should not view a city as limited to its municipal limits. The physical city (contiguous urban area) and even the metropolitan area are more realistic portrayals of the city. 
I've been advocating these points all along as well.

I'd like to discuss the following paragraph in this article:

"The largest city in China is actually Shanghai. It is commonly thought to have a population of 20 million, but Professor Chan thinks 16 million is a better estimate."

The Guangdong Province is at the forefront of Hukou reform in recent years, and many articles discuss this such as the following-
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2010-06/08/c_13338908.htm
Therefore, in a global perspective, the Zhusanjiao urban area (Guangzhou-Shenzhen) can arguably now be considered as China's (and the world's) largest city (Super-City) and not Shanghai.

Also, as we can see in Shanghai's satellite map posted earlier in this thread, there are large swathes of the Shanghai administrative unit that appear rural. As discussed in the following article, 89.3% of Shanghai is urban as of the 2010 census:-
http://www.stats-sh.gov.cn/fxbg/201109/232747.html

Therefore, the urban area of Shanghai does contain 20.6 million. I'm not sure which 16 million people does Ruth refer to and seems to be an ambiguous point in Ruth's article. As per the stats-sh.gov article, even if we include only the "downtown" and the peri-urban areas, there are about 17.8 million people. 

As far as I understand, a population of 23 million is the number used globally for calculating GDP, HDI etc. However, I would be delighted if someone could obtain a more granular breakup of GDP(PPP) and HDI for each district in Shanghai.


----------



## chornedsnorkack

megacity30 said:


> "The largest city in China is actually Shanghai. It is commonly thought to have a population of 20 million, but Professor Chan thinks 16 million is a better estimate."
> 
> Also, as we can see in Shanghai's satellite map posted earlier in this thread, there are large swathes of the Shanghai administrative unit that appear rural. As discussed in the following article, 89.3% of Shanghai is urban as of the 2010 census:-
> http://www.stats-sh.gov.cn/fxbg/201109/232747.html
> 
> Therefore, the urban area of Shanghai does contain 20.6 million.


No. The administrative area of Shanghai contains 20,6 million urban settlers, in the urban area of Shanghai AND in other urban areas separate from Shanghai.


megacity30 said:


> I'm not sure which 16 million people does Ruth refer to and seems to be an ambiguous point in Ruth's article. As per the stats-sh.gov article, even if we include only the "downtown" and the peri-urban areas, there are about 17.8 million people.


Indeed. So where are the 1,8 million people in urban areas or separate urban areas?
The least densely settled of these districts is Jiading, at 3169 per square km. Pudong New Area is more densely settled, but it is big, at 1210 square km, and extends from Lujiazui to remote peninsula.

Do Jiading District or any eastern parts of Pudong New Area contain either rural people or separate urban areas?


----------



## Traceparts

little universe said:


> ^^
> *That Report is not reliable at all! It largely underestimated Chinese City's GDP(PPP) Figures!!! However, the Indian Figures are about right. *
> 
> Check out the other wikipedia Source (List of Chinese administrative divisions by GDP(Both Nominal and PPP) in different years), *it clearly shows that the figures you've cited for Mainland Chinese Cities are Nominal GDP figures not GDP by PPP! For that saying the PWC report from UK about Chinese Cities is totally wrong! And it made huge mistakes by comparing world's cities in different measurements! *
> 
> 
> 
> ^^
> I've also noticed what you've recognised by yourself and stated a few days ago as reads above ^^
> 
> And then i check the wikepedia sources of each of Shanghai and Mumbai's GDP per Capital by PPP in 2010, those give me the figures of *US$ 19,279* and *US$ 9,234*.
> That should match with your logic about China's GDP (PPP) per capita is over twice that of India's.....thus China's Financial Capital's GDP (PPP) per capita is also over twice that of India's Financial Capital's. By konwledging of those two cities' similar population size, how could Mumbai's Total GDP (by PPP) possible almost equal Shanghai's?????? What is even more ridiculous is that someone suggesting that Delhi's total GDP (by PPP) outnumbered Beijing's!!!!!! Pls do have some Common Sense!!!!!! :lol:
> 
> *If measured by by PPP, Shanghai and Beijing had US$ 435 billion and US$ 357.6 billion seperately for the year 2010 BTW!* *Those numbers would be at least twice bigger than Mumbai's and Delhi's seperately!!!* *If by Nominal GDP, the Gap would be even bigger!* :cheers:
> 
> *By that GDP(PPP) Measure, Shanghai probably had already surpassed Osaka, Hong Kong and Seoul, is now holding the Second Place in Asia only after Tokyo!!!*
> 
> There's always some deliberate underestimating, prejudice and misleading towards China among western research institutions' Reports merely because China is ruling by a communist party. Sorry no offense.
> 
> *Meanwhile, i'm not blaming you, you are one of the innocent victims like many others. you were misleaded by the wrong source from that wrong vicious report!*


exaltly, 

*Mumbai is the capital of Maharashtra. but in 2010 year, Mumbai's GDP is $209 billion, Maharashtra's GDP is $190.310 billion. Mumbai's GDP is more than Maharashtra's GDP*

funny, isn't it?


----------



## Yuri S Andrade

As Google Earth cleaned its images, supressing those awful "squares", *São Paulo* and its metro area with the municipalities boundaries:



The municipality is "inverted L-shaped" and there's plenty of undeveloped land southwards. Probably, it will remain like this as it's a very difficult ground, hilly and covered by the Atlantic Forest. 

*11.3 million* people live in São Paulo municipality, *19.7 million* at the official metro area, *22.5 million* at the _de facto_ metro area (including Jundiaí, Atibaia, São Roque regions and the seabord) and *31.5 million* at the macrometropolitan area (Campinas, Piracicaba, Sorocaba, São José dos Campos regions).


----------



## chornedsnorkack

Yuri S Andrade said:


> and there's plenty of undeveloped land southwards. Probably, it will remain like this as it's a very difficult ground, hilly and covered by the Atlantic Forest.
> 
> *11.3 million* people live in São Paulo municipality, *19.7 million* at the official metro area, *22.5 million* at the _de facto_ metro area (including Jundiaí, Atibaia, São Roque regions and the seabord)


Considering the undeveloped and difficult ground in between, in which sense is seaboard "de facto part" of Sao Paulo metropolitan area rather than a completely separate Santos metropolitan area?


----------



## Yuri S Andrade

^^
Difficult for urban expansion, not for exchanges. São Paulo state has by far the best network of freeways in the country. Talking specifically about, the link between São Paulo and the coast, it's made by two freeways: Anchieta and Imigrantes, which handle more than 30 million vehicles/year. We also should keep in mind, São Paulo state has a very high motorization rate, with 450 cars/SUVs/pickups for 1,000 inhabitants (2011) and 55% of the households count with at least 1 car (2010). As you can see, it's quite easy for people to commute over bigger distances using the highway system.

For me, it's pretty clear that São Paulo _de facto_, metro area encompasses at least, Jundiaí-Atibaia (north), São Roque (west) and Santos (south) regions. *22.5 million* people live in this *12,500 km²* area.


----------



## oliver999




----------



## spotila

PRD / YRD :drool:


----------



## Manila-X

From those pics, it is usually the eastern part of Mainland China that is more developed especially the areas surrounding HK and Shanghai.


----------

