# New York population in European standards??



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

coth said:


> Is it not true only because of me said it?


It isn't true because it makes no sense whatsoever...






> I always claimed it. Because they didn't.


You - got - to - be -kidding - me.

How do you expect to have a normal debate when you just deny plain facts?
Simply pathetic.

http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/strategies/sds/london_plan/lon_plan_all.pdf








> Yes, i'm kidding. Since when metro area based on private GLA definition (they however didn't defined).
> 
> London is 25thous. New York is 22. as far as i remember. And that 22thous is entire agglomeration.
> 
> So why do those methods could be applyed to London and other cities, but not to Moscow, where commuter belt covers area in 20mln?


Private? Do you even kinow what the GLA is? Man, debating this with you is so tiring. The GLA is a government authority (the London "government" if you will). Private...:|

London's metro is SMALLER than NY's!!! 22,000 vs 27,000 iirc.

These methods also apply to Moscow, that's why it doesn't have 20 million.
I've never seen an official source (like an equivalent of the GLA, but for Moscow) which lists 20 million for Moscow. Moscow and Moscow Oblast are 47,000 sq km and have 17 million inhabitants. There is no way that with a comparable method you will come to 20 million.

You haven't been able to provide us with an official number or a calculation of your own (using official commuter figures) to prove otherwise.
Please stop your claims untill you can back them up...


----------



## london-b (Jul 31, 2004)

lokinyc said:


> I think the fact that London is much more of a low rise city explains why it felt so small to me visiting from NYC. Plus, the Thames was a disappointment compared with our Hudson and East Rivers. BUT, I still love London!


How can the Thames be a disappointment? It would be if you went expecting it to be full of sharks and clear blue like the med.


----------



## coth (Oct 16, 2003)

SHiRO said:


> It isn't true because it makes no sense whatsoever...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Metropolitan REGION SHiRO. Union of metropolitan areas. A big economic zone of metropolitan areas located near to each other. Like Boswash.
And it is 10 511 sq miles. which is 27,5thous sq km.

Moscow province is 4579,9 thousand hectares (45 799 sq km) where
1748,9thous is agricultural lands
64,6thous is protected lands
1839,6thous is forest fund
25,3thous is water fund
135,2thous is land reserve
^That is less populated district. Most of Moscow province.

269,7thous is industrial and millitary objects
496,6thous is settlements

districts of developed territory is about 766,3thous hectares, what is 7 663 sq km. The cities in other provinces that catched by commuter network (link to official source in Russian I posted you some time ago) with population over 1,5mln making in total about 500 sq km. So 20mln is live on 9 thous sq km.


----------



## PhillyPhilly90 (Aug 12, 2005)

OMG!!! I love New York way more than London AND I can admit than New York is bigger but not WAY bigger than London. You guys get the impression of London not being nearly as large as NYC because of it being low-rise. That's idiotic. Look, London's metro using US census standards is around 18,000,000...maybe more but I'll assume 18 million. The NY CMSA covering multiple states like NY, NJ, CT and PA is 22 million. If London had the "CMSA" as cities in the U.S., it would cover much of southeast England, and that is around 18 million according to the US census. 

Metro areas in the US are based on commuting patterns...not urbanization. If the London metro was based on commuting patterns as cities in the US, NOT surprisingly...it would be around 18 million because you except people all over SE Engalnd to commute to London. By the way, the UK is a dense island...and most live in the sourthern-southeast area...so 18 million should not be surprising. Why does nobody agree. I agree...and I'm ready to move on with the debate.


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

coth said:


> Metropolitan REGION SHiRO. Union of metropolitan areas. A big economic zone of metropolitan areas located near to each other. Like Boswash.
> And it is 10 511 sq miles. which is 27,5thous sq km.


I'm starting to think you are not fully sane coth...
Why is it so important for you to discredit or downplay the GLA definition of London's metro AREA? Is it a "mine is bigger than yours" thing? Whatever it is, it is starting to get really pathetic...

If you actually read how the GLA describes this 18 million "region" it becomes very clear they are simply talking about nothing less than a METROPOLITAN AREA.

You trying to compare this with a MEGALOPOLIS like BosWash is absolutely ludicrous! Boswash is at least 100,000 sq km, almost 5 times (!) the size of London metro. Absolutely insane! BosWash is comparable with the Blue Banana, Honshu Megalopolis, Pearl River Delta and other Megalopolii.





> Moscow province is 4579,9 thousand hectares (45 799 sq km) where
> 1748,9thous is agricultural lands
> 64,6thous is protected lands
> 1839,6thous is forest fund
> ...


No, 20 million people do not live on 9,000 sq km of continuous area. You are just picking and choosing which pieces of land should be added and you pretend there are not 10,000s of sq km of undeveloped land between it.

Moscow and Moscow Oblast cover 47,000 sq km and Moscow is right in the center.
17 million people live there and if 3 million people need to be somehow added, they have to come from surrounding oblasts. Only problem is that those other oblasts are at least 200 km away from Moscow city center.
Now you have to prove to us there is indeed substantial commuting from that vast distance, otherwise Moscow metro doesn't even reach 17 million.
47,000 sq km is a huge area!


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

PhillyPhilly90 said:


> OMG!!! I love New York way more than London AND I can admit than New York is bigger but not WAY bigger than London. You guys get the impression of London not being nearly as large as NYC because of it being low-rise. That's idiotic. Look, London's metro using US census standards is around 18,000,000...maybe more but I'll assume 18 million. The NY CMSA covering multiple states like NY, NJ, CT and PA is 22 million. If London had the "CMSA" as cities in the U.S., it would cover much of southeast England, and that is around 18 million according to the US census.
> 
> Metro areas in the US are based on commuting patterns...not urbanization. If the London metro was based on commuting patterns as cities in the US, NOT surprisingly...it would be around 18 million because you except people all over SE Engalnd to commute to London. By the way, the UK is a dense island...and most live in the sourthern-southeast area...so 18 million should not be surprising. Why does nobody agree. I agree...and I'm ready to move on with the debate.


Exactely!

And everyone does agree. Only people like MikeHunt and coth who for years have been reading incorrect information about a supposed "metro area" for London of 12 or 14 million, which in fact was not based on commuter patterns but on entire different standards (if at all).
The matter of fact is that the GLA is the only official authority who has now publicized a metro area which is comparable and based on commuter patterns (although they don't go into detail, if we do the math ourselves, this is the conclusion).


----------



## chicagogeorge (Nov 30, 2004)

SHiRO said:


> chicagogeorge what are you trying to say?
> What do densities have to do with this?



I would think that this discussion has a lot to do with density, and area coverage, since the debate is how NYC and London define their metropolitan population.


----------



## polako (Apr 7, 2005)

PhillyPhilly90 said:


> OMG!!! I love New York way more than London AND I can admit than New York is bigger but not WAY bigger than London. You guys get the impression of London not being nearly as large as NYC because of it being low-rise. That's idiotic. Look, London's metro using US census standards is around 18,000,000...maybe more but I'll assume 18 million. The NY CMSA covering multiple states like NY, NJ, CT and PA is 22 million. If London had the "CMSA" as cities in the U.S., it would cover much of southeast England, and that is around 18 million according to the US census.
> 
> Metro areas in the US are based on commuting patterns...not urbanization. If the London metro was based on commuting patterns as cities in the US, NOT surprisingly...it would be around 18 million because you except people all over SE Engalnd to commute to London. By the way, the UK is a dense island...and most live in the sourthern-southeast area...so 18 million should not be surprising. Why does nobody agree. I agree...and I'm ready to move on with the debate.


That's what I've been saying since I became the member of this forum. Metros are based on commuting patterns, not urbanization.


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

chicagogeorge said:


> I would think that this discussion has a lot to do with density, and area coverage, since the debate is how NYC and London define their metropolitan population.


What has density to do with metropolitan areas?


----------



## Butcher (Dec 13, 2004)

MikeHunt said:


> London is not nearly as spread out as NY is. There is nothing in London like Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx and Hudson/Union Counties in NJ that are all adjacent to Manhattan and go on and on in extremely dense areas for miles in every direction. Anyone who thinks that London spreads out more than NY is either stupid or does not know both cities (or both).


*The London city proper* is far more spread out than New York is. So there fore New York does not "dwarf" London. The New York city proper is far more dense than London's city proper. Just look on google earth at each city from the same distance and you will see.


----------



## Christian347 (Aug 7, 2004)

I think why some people doubt or don't believe London metro has 18 million citizens is because they are just not used to hear it or has never heard of the figure. I however don't doubt it's true.


----------



## chicagogeorge (Nov 30, 2004)

SHiRO said:


> What has density to do with metropolitan areas?


 The general concept of a metropolitan or micropolitan statistical area is that of a core area containing a substantial population nucleus, together with adjacent communities having a high degree of economic and social integration with that core. Density is used by the U.S. census bureau in establishing and defining metropolitan areas. 

Section 3 A 3 and Section 12 A 1 and 2 mentions how density is used in defining a metro area.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/mastand.html

Anyway, my earlier posts include more information about the two cities than just density.


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

Interesting link. thanks.

But I'm still not sure what you are trying to say?


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

New York population using European standards? Pretty darned big.


----------



## chicagogeorge (Nov 30, 2004)

SHiRO said:


> Interesting link. thanks.
> 
> But I'm still not sure what you are trying to say?


Nothing really, just comparing the two cities in various ways. I think there are some similarites and of course, some differences in settlement patterns thats all. 

BTW NYC and London, basically rule the world. :runaway:


----------



## mad_nick (May 13, 2004)

Butcher said:


> *The London city proper* is far more spread out than New York is. So there fore New York does not "dwarf" London. The New York city proper is far more dense than London's city proper. Just look on google earth at each city from the same distance and you will see.


In terms of city proper, the two cities are quite equal in population size, but as you noted, London's city proper is far larger than New York in terms of area. (600 vs. 300 sq miles, 1600 vs. 800 sq km)
City proper is just an arbitrary political definition though. If New York's city proper was as large as London, New York would have a population of about 10.8 million. So in terms of "inner area" as defined by the size of London's city proper, New York is about 1.5 times larger, quite a bit larger.
The New York metro area is however only about 20% larger assuming the 18 million figure from the GLA is correct. And London's outer suburbs are denser than New York's outer suburbs, so although New York's inner area is quite a bit denser, London's metro area overall is about as dense the New York metro area.

As for the original question of this thread, it would be very hard for any amatuer to try to define New York's urban area by "European standards", simply because European standards often involve a specific maximum distance (usually 200 meters) between built up areas whereas the US Census defines urban area by a minimum population density of adjacent census blocks and block groups.
Short of the US Census Bureau adopting a similar standard, we will probably never have an authoritative answer to the question.


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

Yeah, European definitions (there isn't one but many) of urban areas rely mostly on the hard lines that can be found between city and countryside in most of Europe.
In the US, there are no such lines. It goes from city to suburbs to exurbs, ever decreasing densities.
In Europe, you'll be in the city and the next minute in the countryside, the minute after that in another city...

I couldn't even estimate a New York urban area according to a European definition, other then to say it would probably be the most populated urban area.


----------



## coth (Oct 16, 2003)

SHiRO said:


> I'm starting to think you are not fully sane coth...
> Why is it so important for you to discredit or downplay the GLA definition of London's metro AREA? Is it a "mine is bigger than yours" thing? Whatever it is, it is starting to get really pathetic...
> 
> If you actually read how the GLA describes this 18 million "region" it becomes very clear they are simply talking about nothing less than a METROPOLITAN AREA.
> ...


There are standards SHiRO. GLA mention wasn't about metro area, but about metro REGION. 

SHiRO, it's not the same as metro area.

And are you like Nick, trying to say that metro strongly depend on area...:crazy:






SHiRO said:


> No, 20 million people do not live on 9,000 sq km of continuous area. You are just picking and choosing which pieces of land should be added and you pretend there are not 10,000s of sq km of undeveloped land between it.
> 
> Moscow and Moscow Oblast cover 47,000 sq km and Moscow is right in the center.
> 17 million people live there and if 3 million people need to be somehow added, they have to come from surrounding oblasts. Only problem is that those other oblasts are at least 200 km away from Moscow city center.
> ...


First of all - most settlements are laying near railways. So it is continues area. 

47thous sq km is huge area yes. but does it matter?




========================================================
OFFICIAL SOURCE FOR COMMUTER NETWORK OF MOSCOW
========================================================


----------



## Küsel (Sep 16, 2004)

Christian347 said:


> I think why some people doubt or don't believe London metro has 18 million citizens is because they are just not used to hear it or has never heard of the figure. I however don't doubt it's true.


It's because wherever datas you look at if in books or the internet, the metro date is always about 12mio and never 18. I am sorry to say that - I was studying this matter and only because of that I know that in fact it's 18mio - and because of the endless discussions here as well. The 12mio is the agglomeration that joins Greater London together with the suburbs and new towns. 18mio is based on commuter patterns and local economical networks. It's just TWO different measurements. We have the same in our country - even worse: we have THREE measurments and that's why you could also lead endless discussions about Zurich - 1.1mio national agglomeration, 1.8mio metropolitan area, 3.2mio Greater Zurich Area (economic area). 

In the US there is just one standard to measure the metros because the most important factor there is the commuter patterns because the cities are planned car-friendly since 50 years - so the traffic streams are important for road and suburban plannings. Many European countries have a more complex measurement factors (for different metro definitinions as mentioned above) that includes commuting as well as sprawl, low percentage of agriculture (in laberours and area), over country avarage long termed pop and economy growth etc.


----------



## coth (Oct 16, 2003)

@Kuesel
Absolutely correct. And that 18mln for London is just theoretical version and not phisical, even like 20mln for Moscow.


----------

