# Population of your city in 2010, 2020, 2030



## beta29

Show me some facts about your city population for the years 2010, 2020, 2030.
Will it grow or not?!


I begin with Berlin.

Berlin has now 3.4 Mio inhabitants(city)and 4.2 Mio inhabitants(metro)
The population will sink in the city to 3.0 Mio, will grow in the metro to 4.5 Mio.


----------



## wjfox

I've edited this thread, changed the title and deleted some of the earlier posts -- this forum is for citytalk and urban issues, not countries/geography...


----------



## ReddAlert

Milwaukee in 2030 will probally be like 13 million.


----------



## Effer

My estimates:

Mumbai w/ Metro:

Current:17 million?
2010:20 million?
2020:28.5 million?
2030:34 million


----------



## polako

delete


----------



## wjfox

London is forecast to overtake New York's population in the near future.


----------



## United-States-of-America

^^ Really? Where did you get that information?


----------



## DrJoe

Toronto

Now 
City - 2.6 million
Metro - 5.6 million

2011
City - 2.7
Metro - 6.3

2021
City - 3.0 
Metro - 7.3

2031
City - 3.1
Metro - 8.1


----------



## Onur

Antalya...
1997-509.000
2000-604.000
2005-775.000
--------------
2010-1.020.000
2020-1.750.000
2030-3.000.000


----------



## PhillyPhilly90

wjfox2002 said:


> London is forecast to overtake New York's population in the near future.


You really can't say that yet. London has around 7.5 or 7.6 million people, it's gonna take a while to reach 8 million.

And also, New York's population future is unpredictable. New York's population can boom. Right now, the city's population is not doing much at 8.1 million but you never know it can boom. Look at 1990 to 2000, from 7,322,000 to 8,008,000. A gain of 700,000. London would overtake New York's population at the rate it's growing right now. But who knows, NYC could start growing again later.


----------



## polako

wjfox2002 said:


> London is forecast to overtake New York's population in the near future.


No. It will never happen.


----------



## london-b

polako said:


> No. It will never happen.


You sound more in denial in that post than anything.


----------



## DrJoe

Why does it matter anyway, metro NY will still be bigger.


----------



## pottebaum

polako said:


> No. It will never happen.


They're just talking about city-proper, not metropolitan. Anyway, London's peak city population from 1939 is actually larger than New York's right now and is 2X larger in area. By all mean, it _should_ surpass it. A lot can happen, though--I wouldn't put too much faith in projections.


----------



## london-b

DrJoe said:


> Why does it matter anyway, metro NY will still be bigger.


Metros are overrated on here, who cares? At some level I'm in the London metro, but is where I live anything like London? NO!


----------



## DrJoe

Because the city population is based on some useless border, the city with the largest border will win.


----------



## PhillyPhilly90

Well if you look at the satellite image of New York and London, the borders don't matter at all and New York creams London. At 600 sq. mi around New York is approximately 11,000,000 people.


----------



## london-b

DrJoe said:


> Because the city population is based on some useless border, the city with the largest border will win.


Ah good point :yes: I'm a fool today.


----------



## eklips

The problem is that the London metro calculations take into acount a lot of surounding countryside that surround the urban area but that is directly linked to the city, as a metro area, London will maybe surpass New York in population, but in urban area, it will a much tougher job.


----------



## Azn_chi_boi

Well... this is what I think Chicago will be.
2000- 2.9 mill Metro 9.5 million
2010- 3 mill Metro 10 Mill
2020 3.1 mill Metro 11 mill
2030 3.2 Mill Metro 14 mill(with Milwaukee)

But of course anything could happen...


----------



## polako

909 said:


> My hometown, Emmen (The Netherlands):
> 
> 2000: 108.000
> 2010: 110.000
> 2020: 120.000
> 
> 
> Despite negative growths in some of those countries, cities like Moscow, Barcelona, Madrid and Tokyo are still growing.


delete


----------



## polako

London_2006 said:


> It'll happen between 2015-2020 if growth rates remain constant. London is growing 2-3x faster than NYC.


Growth rates never remain constant. :bash:


----------



## London_2006

polako said:


> Growth rates never remain constant. :bash:


We'll it'll happen soon then.


----------



## rocky

paris metro 2005 : 11.5mil

2010 : 18 mil

2020 : 26mil

2030 : 45mil

serioulsy i dont know , it should be approx 13-14mil


----------



## Faz90

My guess. 

Baltimore City 2005: 620,000

2010: 590,000

2020: 520,000

2030: 550,000

Baltimore is the second fastest shrinking city in US.


----------



## Mr.Gunther

http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html 

thats an extra 8640 people every day pouring into US cities


----------



## ROCguy

Faz90 said:


> My guess.
> 
> Baltimore City 2005: 620,000
> 
> 2010: 590,000
> 
> 2020: 520,000
> 
> 2030: 550,000
> 
> Baltimore is the second fastest shrinking city in US.


In 2003 it gained population for the first time in 5 years I think.


----------



## Faz90

ROCguy said:


> In 2003 it gained population for the first time in 5 years I think.


I think it was just an estimate.


----------



## sequoias

Seattle, WA 

city proper............metro
2000: 563,000........3,554,000

2005: 573,000........3,763,000

2010: 582,000........3,910,000

2020: 625,000........4,425,000 

2030: 705,000........5,150,000

those are rough estimates by me... 

it's hard to estimate and we never know what happens in the future.


----------



## coth

There is no official estimates by authorities for Moscow.
So just my forecast for registered population.

City of Moscow
2002: 10 102 000 (census)
2005: 10 410 000 (official estimates)
2010: 11 290 000
2020: 12 100 000
2030: 13 320 000


Moscow Province
2002: 6 640 000 (census)
2005: 7 150 000 (official estimates)
2010: 8 320 000
2020: 8 900 000
2030: 9 520 000

including unregistered
City of Moscow
2002: 10 600 000
2005: 11 010 000
2010: 11 600 000
2020: 12 400 000
2030: 13 510 000


Moscow Province
2002: 10 110 000
2005: 10 750 000
2010: 11 520 000
2020: 11 510 000
2030: 10 980 000


----------



## Jaye101

The pop of Chicago is estimated to fall like in previous years. How many of you beleive this?


----------



## ChicagoSkyline

JayeTheOnly said:


> The pop of Chicago is estimated to fall like in previous years. How many of you beleive this?


The Toronto is estimated to fall even more than what it has, do u believe in this? Come one, please. Tell that to da great chicagoan and let us laugh a little!


----------



## Citystyle

Perth Australia

Current: 1.49m
2010: 1.8m
2120:2.2m
2030: 2.6


----------



## le lyonnais du 81

PARIS

NOW :11 millions
2030 :14 millions


----------



## Mephisto

Sydney 
current - 4.3 million
2010 - 4.6 million
2020 - 5.2 million
2030 - 5.8 million


----------



## Jaye101

ChicagoSkyline said:


> The Toronto is estimated to fall even more than what it has, do u believe in this? Come one, please. Tell that to da great chicagoan and let us laugh a little!


lol..... But seriously...


----------



## Jaye101

Toronto is expected to be 3.1 Million, with a Metro of about 8 million.


----------



## pottebaum

Chicago's population is not expected to decline; the 2000 to 2004 estimate was negative, but that's just an _estimate_. Seriously, they're off by thousands. How much Chicago grows from now until the official census is pretty dependant on how many people leave the S and SW sides of the city.


----------



## leebuk2005

I think the two cities of Manchester and Liverpool will merge togeather by 2030. Currently Manchesters Pop is around 2.5 million and liverpools around 1.8 million. Both are seeing good rates of growth so i predict by 2030 the will be one big urban sprawl with a population of around 6 million.
You can alrady see the urban areas merging together.


----------



## Jaye101

pottebaum said:


> Chicago's population is not expected to decline; the 2000 to 2004 estimate was negative, but that's just an _estimate_. Seriously, they're off by thousands. How much Chicago grows from now until the official census is pretty dependant on how many people leave the S and SW sides of the city.


Okay.


----------



## weill

ratclaw said:


> http://www.demographia.com/db-2025metroalpha.htm


lol this list is wrong, My city has already passed the 255,000 mark it sets in 2025, the metro is about 288,000 right now. I guess thats OFF


----------



## Xusein

Hartford is a special case, the city lost over 15k (out of 139k), and fell down to third place in the state. BUT, the city is gaining people and it seems like the problems have stablized. Here are my projections for the city:

1990: 139,739
2000: 121,578
2003: 124,387
2010: 128,000
2020: 134,000
2030: 138,000

Now the metro is different. Because of Hartford's drop, it gained 2.2 percent in the 1990s. But like Hartford, the growth has rebounded, and now it is one of the faster growing metro areas in the Northeast. If current trends continue, this will happen.

1990: 1,126,000
2000: 1,147,000
2010: 1,223,000
2020: 1,306,000
2030: 1,394,000

If Springfield, MA metro combines anytime soon, it could be over 2 million.


----------



## TheKansan

Kansas City, Missouri had 445,000 in 2000.

My guess is moderate growth

2010 450,000
2020 475,000
2030 500,000


----------



## vishalt

Sydney - 4 million

2030 - 4 billion


----------



## dallas

I'll go out on a limb and say Perth (in Oz) will have a higher growth rate than orginally estimated by the ABS, so that by 2030:
Perth 2.8 million
Mandurah 200K

So 3.0 mil in total urban area.


----------



## smartlake

Coeur d'Alene Idaho:
**The land area of Cd'A is actually quite small, at only 13 sq. miles (with 4% being Lake Coeur d'Alene), and it has NO room to grow; it is surrounded by water, Post Falls, Mountains, and Hayden. High-density offices and housing are starting to come to the city in rapid numbers even now, and will only accelerate in coming years.

1990- 24,000 (actual)
2000- 34,000 (actual)
2006- 42,000 (actual)
2010- 46,000 
2020- 65,000
2030- 75,000

Kootenai County Idaho (county that houses Cd'A)
**Almost all of the people live in the northern fourth of the county, it is as dense here as any metro area. We are neighbored by Spokane, Wa. Last year, Kootenai County was the fastest growing county in Idaho (the 4th fastest growing state). It is said that we will likely reach 250,000 by 2020.

1990- 65,000 (actual)
2000- 108,000 (actual)
2006- 130,000 (actual)
2010- 142,000
2020- 250,000 (yes, that is almost 100% growth...)
2030- 300,000

Spokane WA
**I don't know too much about here
2006- 199,000
2010- 205,000
2020- 210,000
2030- 217,000

Spokane & Coeur d'Alene Metro 
2006- 445,000 (only Spokane, for now)
2010- 617,000 (Spokane and Kootenai Counties, now)
2020- 840,000 (Spokane, Kootenai, Bonner (idaho) counties, now)
2030- 1,000,000 (same counties)


----------



## oskarj

Stockholm:
2006- 1,8 million
2030- 2,4 million


----------



## brisavoine

Paris metro area:

2006 - 11.7 million
2010 - 12 million

Then after 2010 it's hard to predict, depending whether current growth rates continue, or fall (lower birthrate), or increase (higher immigration). So we get the following projections:

2020:
13.2 million (higher immigration)
12.7 million (current growth rate)
12.3 million (fall in natality)

2030:
14.6 million (higher immigration)
13.5 million (current growth rate)
12.7 million (fall in natality)


----------



## brisavoine

In France though, the most spectacular growing city is not Paris, but Toulouse. It is currently the fastest growing city in Europe (among cities of more than 1 million people). Look at the figures.

Toulouse metro area:
1962 - 0.35 million
1999 - 0.96 million
2006 - 1.1 million

Then, depending whether current super high growth rates continue, or decrease a bit, we get the following projections:
2010 - 1.16 million
2020 - 1.32 to 1.38 million
2030 - 1.5 to 1.63 million

Toulouse is a unique case in Europe because it's metro area population has tripled in little more than 40 years. In the space of just a generation, Toulouse has grown from a low-key regional city the size of Karlsruhe (Germany) or Murcia (Spain) to a big European player the size of Dublin or Oslo.


----------



## Ringil

Uppsala - the official

2005 - 182.500

2030 - 250.000


----------



## Mastodon Goard

Toronto (metro) Montreal (metro)

today: 5, 650, 000 3, 637, 000 
2011: 9, 650, 000 2, 750, 000
2021: 16, 650, 001 1, 030, 000
2031: 42, 355, 003 000

Taranna is the centre of the universe, and will suck in all of Canada's population


----------



## Audiomuse

Macon-Warner Robins Metro
Current- 394,556
2010- 430,000 (Our metro is growing real fast) Some from spillover ATL
2020-550,000
2030-800,000


----------



## dysan1

Durban, South Africa

Current: 3,5m
2010: 4,1m
2020: 5,5m
2030: 6,4m

Major urbanisation is occuring and by 2020 it is expected that durban will have close on 50% of the provincial population


----------



## sl64

Mastodon Goard said:


> Taranna is the centre of the universe, and will suck in all of Canada's population


The funny thing is that Toronto _will_ suck in a huge part of Canada's population by 2030. While others have already posted the forecasts for Toronto and the GTA, I think that as Toronto grows you'll see more emphasis placed on a "Greater" GTA, possibly what is today the Greater Golden Horseshoe, especially as Greater Toronto absorbs Hamilton and possibly Kitchener/Waterloo. The GGH is expected to grow to 11.5 million by 2030, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's slightly higher than that. 

To summarize, in 2030:

Toronto proper - 3.1 million
GTA - 7.5-8 million
GGH - 11.5-12 million

Bear in mind that the GGH would be Toronto's metro area even today if we went by US criteria.


----------



## 909

brisavoine said:


> In France though, the most spectacular growing city is not Paris, but Toulouse. It is currently the fastest growing city in Europe (among cities of more than 1 million people). Look at the figures.
> 
> Toulouse metro area:
> 1962 - 0.35 million
> 1999 - 0.96 million
> 2006 - 1.1 million
> 
> Then, depending whether current super high growth rates continue, or decrease a bit, we get the following projections:
> 2010 - 1.16 million
> 2020 - 1.32 to 1.38 million
> 2030 - 1.5 to 1.63 million
> 
> Toulouse is a unique case in Europe because it's metro area population has tripled in little more than 40 years. In the space of just a generation, Toulouse has grown from a low-key regional city the size of Karlsruhe (Germany) or Murcia (Spain) to a big European player the size of Dublin or Oslo.


Interesting, but what is the reason for this growth? Is it Airbus, other high-tech industries, the climate?


----------



## dave8721

From census - 

Greater Miami (Miami-Dade County):
2000: 2,253,362
2005: 2,402,105
2010: 2,576,400
2015: 2,726,100
2020: 2,874,600

Metro Miami (3 current counties that make up metro): 
2000: 5,007,571
2005: 5,421,900
2010: 5,943,372
2020: 6,820,887


----------



## littleeyes

Hello, Greetings from Zamora, Mexico, good my city at the moment with their conurbation, Jacona has 400 000 inhabitants approximately, with a rhythm of growth of 4.10%:


----------



## Klas

*@all*

i think in 2050 there will be around 1(supersupergigacity;-)more than 50 million 7 supergigacities(more than 40 million) 10 gigacities (more than 30 million) 6 hyper (more than 20 million)and 16 megacities ( with more than 10 million)

they are supersupergiga (1) Tokyo +50 mll
-supergiga (7) LA ,BOSWASH ,Dacca,delhi,mumbai,Sao +40 mllPaulo,mexico city
-giga (4)Shanghai ,jakaqrtaLagos and Pearl river delta
-hyper (6)Rio,Buenos aires,osaka-nagoya,karachi ,london region,lima 
-mega (16)Chicagoland,Paris,rhein ruhr manila ,bankok,bogota,bejing,tianjin,taipeh,kinshasa,johannesburg region, cairo,alexandria,moscow,san fracisco-sacramento area and rangun


----------



## tiger

In 2020,Metro Chongqing might have more than 30 million.


----------



## 909

tiger said:


> In 2020,Metro Chongqing might have more than 30 million.


According to wikipedia, it already exceded the 30 million mark:



> The municipality of Chongqing has a registered population of 31,442,300 (2005), most of them living outside the urban area of Chongqing proper, over hundreds of square miles of farmland. The population of the urban area of Chongqing proper was 12.057 million in 2005, ranking as the 3th largest city of China in term of population.
> 
> (...)
> 
> - Area 82,300 km² (26th)
> - Population (2005) 31,220,000 (20th)
> - Density approx. 379/km² (10th)
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chongqing


... but an area twice the size of the Netherlands doesn't make one big metropolitan area of 30+ million people.


----------



## ardimusica

*Jakarta - indonesia*
2000 - 8,3 mil
2010 - 9 mil
2020 - 9,3 mil

*Bali - Indonesia*
2000 - 3,1 mil
2010 - 3,6 mil
2020 - 4 mil
2025 - 4,2 mil


----------



## aarhusforever

*Aarhus* - the official numbers. (Second largest city in Denmark)

2010 - 306.000

2030 - 380.000


----------



## Isek

aaabbbccc said:


> ... greater casablanca region is now at 5 million .... metro region 6 million or so


Where do you get this 5 million figure from? All data published give 3.3 million for Greater Casablanca what is more or less covering the urban area. 
I doubt this figure will double by the next 20 years. Natural growth will decrease significantly while Morocco will be at least for the next 20 years a country having massive net emigration. Furthermore Moroccan economy is not focused on Casa any more. This was the case in the 70ies and 80ies. Today you have around 5 towns that are attracting people from the countryside to work and live in. 




Himmelwärts said:


> Vienna, Austria
> 2011 - - - 1.711.716
> 2025 - - - 1.856.467
> 2050 - - - 2.050.788
> 2075 - - - 2.150.060
> 
> i dont know if the last 2 ones are very predictable, but i found them


:lol: This thread seems more to be a playground for statistics rather than a objective discussion. Even predictions to 2030 are more than doubtable. But for 2075?? :lol:


----------



## Metro007

Here an estimation for ZURICH (according to the scenario "middle" of 3 possible ones published by the federal institue of statistics, taking into account the same growing-rates as estimated for the canton of Zurich):

*2010*
City: 385'000
Agglo: 1.081 Mio
Metro: 1.66 Mio

*2020*
City: 415'000
Agglo: 1.17 Mio
Metro: 1.79 Mio

*2030*
City: 436'000
Agglo: 1.23 Mio
Metro: 1.88 Mio


----------



## sebvill

*Lima*

2010

City 7,205,742
Metro 8,472,975

2020

City 7,400,000
Metro 9,500,000

2030

City 7,250,000
Metro 10,000,000

2050

City 6,950,000
Metro 10,700,000


----------



## xussep80

*Barcelona, Spain*

__________*City*_____________*Metro area*

2011_____1.605.000__________4.980.000

2021_____1.580.000__________5.230.000

2031_____1.610.000__________5.400.000


----------



## pikopancho

*Perth, Australia*

1961-475,000
2001-1,340,000
2011-1,700,000
_(Median Series projection-base year 2006)_
2021-2,140,000
2031-2,670,000
2051-3,796,000

Source: http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/DetailsPage/3222.02006%20to%202101?OpenDocument


----------



## jeromeee

cello1974 said:


> Frankfurt 2005: 653.000 Metro: 4,3 M
> 2010: 660.000 4,4 M
> 2020: 680.000 4,5 M
> 2030: 675.000 4,6 M
> Growth is sloooooow, but at least not negative as in the 1990s...


The 2011 population has already overtaken the old figures.
The new statistics for the city (metro is growing but I dont have official data):

now: 692.500
2012: 705.000
2015: 717.000
2020: 725.000
2030: 724.000


----------



## julesstoop

Dezz said:


> Amsterdam, The Netherlands
> 
> 2005: City: 742.000 Metro (Randstad Holland): 6.600.000
> 2010: City: 771.000 Metro (Randstad Holland): 6.700.000 ?
> 2020: City: 800.000 Metro (Randstad Holland): 6.900.000 ?
> 2030: City: 835.000 Metro (Randstad Holland): 7.200.000 ?
> 
> We have a slow growth in The Netherlands.


Amsterdam's growth seems to be accelerating, recently. By 31August 2011 the population of the municipality had reached 787.226. Now this may be an anomaly and growth within (present day) municipal borders obviously can't continue forever. 

But still, if the city were to reach 790k by the end of this year, we're suddenly looking at a growth-rate of almost 10k per year over the last 2 years. That's close to double the rate compared to 2005-2010. If the trend continues until 2020, the municipality of Amsterdam will have over 850.000 inhabitants by then.


----------



## elliOth_agS

Mexico City Metroarea.

According with this projection, the city will grow 2 million per decade, in that way the numbers will be like...


*2010* 20.1 Millions / Federal District 8.8 Millions (Last census)
*2020* 22 Millions 
*2030* 24 Millions

I found projections only for MexCity Metroarea, and not for Federal District.


----------



## Manitopiaaa

Major US Cities-
Here's the numbers I see.
Note: Population Increase based on past 30-year average growth rate (in numbers, not percentage)
Note: These numbers are for the 2010 definition of the MSA and does not add any new counties to the MSA for either 2020 or 2030.
My Prediction is my personal prediction for 2030

Atlanta:
2000-4,247,981
2010-5,268,860
2020-6,348,577
2030-7,428,293
My Prediction-6,800,000

Austin
2000-1,249,763
2010-1,716,289
2020-2,109,489
2030-2,502,690
My Prediction-2,700,000

Boston
2000-4,391,344
2010-4,552,402
2020-4,755,290
2030-4,958,179
My Prediction-4,900,000

Chicago
2000-9,098,316
2010-9,461,105
2020-9,979,315
2030-10,497,525
My Prediction-10,200,000

Dallas-Fort Worth
2000-5,161,544
2010-6,371,773
2020-7,510,000
2030-8,648,228
My Prediction-8,800,000

Detroit
2000-4,452,557
2010-4,296,250
2020-4,277,252
2030-4,258,255
My Prediction-4,300,000

Honolulu
2000-876,156
2010-953,207
2020-1,019,545
2030-1,085,883
My Prediction-1,100,000

Houston
2000-4,715,407
2010-5,946,800
2020-6,876,709
2030-7,806,619
My Prediction-7,900,000

Las Vegas
2000-1,375,765
2010-1,951,269
2020-2,447,330
2030-2,943,390
My Prediction-2,600,000

Los Angeles
2000-12,365,627
2010-12,828,837
2020-13,967,104
2030-15,105,372
My Prediction-14,100,000

Memphis
2000-1,205,204
2010-1,316,100
2020-1,441,874
2030-1,567,649
My Prediction-1,500,000

Miami
2000-5,007,564
2010-5,564,635
2020-6,346,031
2030-7,127,427
My Prediction-6,300,000

Minneapolis-Saint Paul
2000-2,968,806
2010-3,279,833
2020-3,658,630
2030-4,037,428
My Prediction-4,200,000

New Orleans
2000-1,316,510
2010-1,167,764
2020-1,140,389
2030-1,113,014
My Prediction-1,300,000

New York
2000-18,323,002
2010-18,897,109
2020-19,748,614
2030-20,600,120
My Prediction-20,400,000

Philadelphia
2000-5,687,147
2010-5,965,343
2020-6,207,472
2030-6,449,600
My Prediction-6,600,000

Phoenix
2000-3,251,876
2010-4,192,887
2020-5,057,193
2030-5,921,498
My Prediction-5,200,000

San Francisco
2000-4,123,740
2010-4,335,391
2020-4,698,321
2030-5,061,250
My Prediction-5,000,000

Seattle
2000-3,043,878
2010-3,439,809
2020-3,890,002
2030-4,340,190
My Prediction-4,500,000

Washington
2000-4,796,183
2010-5,582,170
2020-6,354,261
2030-7,126,351
My Prediction-7,300,000


----------



## kingchef

memphis: 2010- 1,347,000

2020: 1,803,342

2030: 2,450,000

***if nashville continues to lose population in davidson county-nashville because of their swelled heads, cowboy hats, and tight boots, in addition to banjos and guitars, those people will have to migrate to memphis and shelby county. w/ that occurrence, the memphis population in the metro will probably reach 3.3 million by 2030.


----------



## Manitopiaaa

^^
Um...Nashville is growing like 10x faster than Memphis and its MSA is in much better economic shape. I think your bias is shielding you from the facts:

Here's a better prediction:
Memphis
2000-1,205,204
2010-1,316,100
2020-1,441,874
2030-1,567,649
My Prediction-1,500,000


----------



## luciaparkison

i am from Cape Town and my city's population is about 3,497,097


----------



## JD47

Does anyone know anything about what the population of Dublin could be i 2020 because before the economic crisis they said the population would be 2.2 million in 2020.
Does anyone know what it could be now because of the crisis.


----------



## sebvill

^^ 0.2 millions

:jk:


----------



## pesto

Manitopiaaa said:


> Major US Cities-
> Here's the numbers I see.
> Note: Population Increase based on past 30-year average growth rate (in numbers, not percentage)
> Note: These numbers are for the 2010 definition of the MSA and does not add any new counties to the MSA for either 2020 or 2030.
> My Prediction is my personal prediction for 2030
> 
> Atlanta:
> 2000-4,247,981
> 2010-5,268,860
> 2020-6,348,577
> 2030-7,428,293
> My Prediction-6,800,000
> 
> Austin
> 2000-1,249,763
> 2010-1,716,289
> 2020-2,109,489
> 2030-2,502,690
> My Prediction-2,700,000
> 
> Boston
> 2000-4,391,344
> 2010-4,552,402
> 2020-4,755,290
> 2030-4,958,179
> My Prediction-4,900,000
> 
> Chicago
> 2000-9,098,316
> 2010-9,461,105
> 2020-9,979,315
> 2030-10,497,525
> My Prediction-10,200,000
> 
> Dallas-Fort Worth
> 2000-5,161,544
> 2010-6,371,773
> 2020-7,510,000
> 2030-8,648,228
> My Prediction-8,800,000
> 
> Detroit
> 2000-4,452,557
> 2010-4,296,250
> 2020-4,277,252
> 2030-4,258,255
> My Prediction-4,300,000
> 
> Honolulu
> 2000-876,156
> 2010-953,207
> 2020-1,019,545
> 2030-1,085,883
> My Prediction-1,100,000
> 
> Houston
> 2000-4,715,407
> 2010-5,946,800
> 2020-6,876,709
> 2030-7,806,619
> My Prediction-7,900,000
> 
> Las Vegas
> 2000-1,375,765
> 2010-1,951,269
> 2020-2,447,330
> 2030-2,943,390
> My Prediction-2,600,000
> 
> Los Angeles
> 2000-12,365,627
> 2010-12,828,837
> 2020-13,967,104
> 2030-15,105,372
> My Prediction-14,100,000
> 
> Memphis
> 2000-1,205,204
> 2010-1,316,100
> 2020-1,441,874
> 2030-1,567,649
> My Prediction-1,500,000
> 
> Miami
> 2000-5,007,564
> 2010-5,564,635
> 2020-6,346,031
> 2030-7,127,427
> My Prediction-6,300,000
> 
> Minneapolis-Saint Paul
> 2000-2,968,806
> 2010-3,279,833
> 2020-3,658,630
> 2030-4,037,428
> My Prediction-4,200,000
> 
> New Orleans
> 2000-1,316,510
> 2010-1,167,764
> 2020-1,140,389
> 2030-1,113,014
> My Prediction-1,300,000
> 
> New York
> 2000-18,323,002
> 2010-18,897,109
> 2020-19,748,614
> 2030-20,600,120
> My Prediction-20,400,000
> 
> Philadelphia
> 2000-5,687,147
> 2010-5,965,343
> 2020-6,207,472
> 2030-6,449,600
> My Prediction-6,600,000
> 
> Phoenix
> 2000-3,251,876
> 2010-4,192,887
> 2020-5,057,193
> 2030-5,921,498
> My Prediction-5,200,000
> 
> San Francisco
> 2000-4,123,740
> 2010-4,335,391
> 2020-4,698,321
> 2030-5,061,250
> My Prediction-5,000,000
> 
> Seattle
> 2000-3,043,878
> 2010-3,439,809
> 2020-3,890,002
> 2030-4,340,190
> My Prediction-4,500,000
> 
> Washington
> 2000-4,796,183
> 2010-5,582,170
> 2020-6,354,261
> 2030-7,126,351
> My Prediction-7,300,000


If we are looking at groups of aggregated people, then you seem to be picking up a rather limited LA. LA and the OC have about 13M; the IE about 5M; Ventura Cty. 1M. Clearly 19M in that group. Including SD and Tijuana maybe 6M more. About 25M now but presumably growing


----------



## FAAN

edit


----------



## IgorVV

Vila Velha, Brazil

Now
City: 414 586
metro: 1 685 384 
2020
City 490.000
metro: 1.900.000
2030
City: 580.000
Metro: 2.500.00


----------



## gabrielbabb

MEXICO CITY

1940 - 2 million
1980 - 14 million
2010 - 20 million

According to the National Conseil of population of Mexico:

2030 - 23 million


----------



## CNB30

Richmond 
2010: 204,000
2020: 220,000
2030: 240,000


----------



## isaidso

IThomas said:


> What is the whole area? GTA and H in sqkm?


The GTA is 7,124 sq km and 'H' would be 1,138 sq km. Hamilton would start where Burlington finishes. 

Both these areas include huge swaths of land where very few people live, but are included because they are part of the borough. For instance 90% of Durham's population (pale yellow in the east) lives on a thin band of land along the lake. Likewise, 90% of Hamilton's population is concentrated in those 11 small wards in the 2nd map.

The population in the GTA+H hugs the lake. One could exclude more than half the territory and only see a small drop from the 6.9 million people who live here today. 

One should never just look at the 'City of Toronto' when measuring Toronto's population or Toronto's population growth. The majority of growth happens outside the 'City of Toronto'. In the 1980s it was Scarborough and North York in the 'City of Toronto' that saw a spike. As they filled up, the growth moved to Mississauga (peach colour to the west). As that filled up, the growth moved even further out to Brampton. Now it's Milton and Caledon experiencing a population boom.

As a point of reference, the City of Toronto is 630 sq km and has about 2.8 million people today. 










*Hamilton's 'wards'*


----------



## Eric Offereins

Rotterdam now: 618K, in 2020: 640K, in 2030: 660K

source:
http://www.rotterdam.nl/COS/publica...83.Bevolkingsprognose Rotterdam 2013-2030.pdf


----------



## chicagogeorge

By 2020

Chicago city proper: 2.6 million ( down about 100,000 from 2010)
MSA: 9.7 million ( up about 200,000)
CSA: 10.1 million (up about 250,000)
Urbanized Area: around 9 million


----------



## nameless dude

What it looks like for Australia according to the latest projections:

2010:
Sydney: 4,555,516
Melbourne: 4,105,857
Brisbane: 2,108,348 
Perth: 1,781,132
Adelaide: 1,253,097

2020:
Sydney: 5,316,787
Melbourne: 4,977,987
Brisbane: 2,607,139
Perth: 2,461,273
Adelaide: 1,403,973

2030:
Sydney: 6,127,122
Melbourne: 5,894,159
Brisbane: 3,137,180
Perth: 3,176,476
Adelaide: 1,552,994

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]&prodno=3218.0&issue=2012-13&num=&view=

_Disclaimer - as seen in link:



Population projections are not predictions or forecasts, but are illustrations of the change in population which would occur if certain assumptions about future levels of fertility, mortality and migration (usually based on recent trends) were to hold over time.

Click to expand...

_


----------



## isaidso

*Toronto*


*2020 Projection*
City of Toronto: 3,200,000
Toronto CMA: 6,400,000
Urbanized Area: 7,500,000 (includes Hamilton and Oshawa)
Greater Golden Horseshoe: 9,900,000


*2030 Projection*
City of Toronto: 3,800,000
Toronto CMA: 7,400,000
Urbanized Area: 8,600,000 (includes Hamilton and Oshawa)
Greater Golden Horseshoe: 11,300,000


----------



## Yuri S Andrade

^^
isaidso, why every time you post figures for Toronto, it grows even faster?

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

*São Paulo*, as defined here:



Yuri S Andrade said:


> Figures for expanded areas:
> 
> *GDP 2011 for São Paulo Macrometropolitan Area**
> 
> 
> 
> *---------------------------------------------- GDP 2011 ------ Pop. 2011
> São Paulo Macrometropolitan Area ------ 681,530,000,000 -- 31,701,724*
> 
> GDP per capita: *US$ 21,498*. Comprising the southeast quarter of São Paulo state (63,072 km²), it's as 2011, the third largest GDP of Americas, just behind New York-Philadelphia-Hartford corridor and Southern California; overtopping Chicago-Milwaukee corridor, expanded Bay Area and Washington-Baltimore. The weak Brazilian real (2012-2013) will flatten the GDP of São Paulo region, but it'll probably be able to hold the 3rd place.
> 
> _Definition: Mesorregião de Campinas, Mesorregião Macrometropolitana de São Paulo, Mesorregião Metropolitana de São Paulo, Mesorregião de Piracicaba, Mesorregião do Vale do Paraíba Paulista and Microrregião de Itanhaém_



*1940* ---- 3,466,376

*1950* ---- 4,851,880

*1960* ---- 7,751,071

*1970* --- 12,226,903

*1980* --- 18,738,357

*1991* --- 23,802,014

*2000* --- 28,111,603

*2010* --- 31,433,393

_*2020* --- 34,500,000

*2030* --- 37,000,000_


----------



## isaidso

Yuri S Andrade said:


> ^^
> isaidso, why every time you post figures for Toronto, it grows even faster?


I'm tabulating a data chart that maps how fast you will criticize based on what numbers I post. Just 10 more posts and I'll have a good data set.


----------



## Yellow Fever

According to http://www.metrovancouver.org/plann...roundersNew/RGSMetro2040ResidentialGrowth.pdf the metro Vancouver will reach a population of 3.4 million by the year 2041. But keep in mind that this figure hasn't included the Fraser Valley regional district which along with metro Vancouver form the Greater Lower Mainland region. I would put the total number in the whole region to slightly over 4 millions by 2041.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade

isaidso said:


> I'm tabulating a data chart that maps how fast you will criticize based on what numbers I post. Just 10 more posts and I'll have a good data set.


I'm just asking.


----------



## erka

Groningen has always had a steady growth and this growth will continue, while the rural around the city will have population decline.

1300: 4.000
1550: 12.000
1650: 20.000
1800: 25.000
1900: 67.000
1960: 145.000
2000: 174.000
2014: 198.000

2020: 215.000
2030: 235.000

Sources of prediction for 2020/30 is Dutch Statistics Agency (CBS)


----------



## koolkid

Azn_chi_boi said:


> Well... this is what I think Chicago will be.
> 2000- 2.9 mill Metro 9.5 million
> 2010- 3 mill Metro 10 Mill
> 2020 3.1 mill Metro 11 mill
> 2030 3.2 Mill Metro 14 mill(with Milwaukee)
> 
> *But of course anything could happen...*


Indeed, it can and it did. No one saw that huge drop coming. Reading these old comments is quite interesting considering how things actually turned out. I do think Chicago can make it to 3 million, maybe in 20 more years though.


----------



## isaidso

Yuri S Andrade said:


> I'm just asking.


It's based on this chart and a trend towards the core grabbing a far greater share of the overall growth. 









Courtesy of vid


----------



## isaidso

Yellow Fever said:


> According to http://www.metrovancouver.org/plann...roundersNew/RGSMetro2040ResidentialGrowth.pdf the metro Vancouver will reach a population of 3.4 million by the year 2041. But keep in mind that this figure hasn't included the Fraser Valley regional district which along with metro Vancouver form the Greater Lower Mainland region. I would put the total number in the whole region to slightly over 4 millions by 2041.


That sounds about right. The region's population seems to grow by about 10% every 5 years without fail. What is the area of the Lower Mainland?


----------



## isaidso

*Calgary CMA*

2011: 1,215,000 (5th)
2021: 1,850,000 (4th)
2031: 2,550,000 (4th)


*Edmonton CMA*

2011: 1,160,000 (6th)
2021: 1,650,000 (5th)
2031: 2,300,000 (5th)


*Ottawa CMA*

2011: 1,240,000 (4th)
2021: 1,480,000 (6th)
2031: 1,750,000 (6th)


*Montreal CMA*

2011: 3,830,000 (2nd)
2021: 4,350,000 (2nd)
2031: 4,900,000 (2nd)


*Vancouver CMA*

2011: 2,310,000 (3rd)
2021: 2,700,000 (3rd)
2031: 3,100,000 (3rd)


----------



## isaidso

*Kitchener-Waterloo CMA*

2011: 480,000 (10th)
2021: 600,000 (10th)
2031: 750,000 (10th)


*Hamilton CMA*

2011: 720,000 (9th)
2021: 790,000 (9th)
2031: 920,000 (9th)


*Quebec City CMA*

2011: 770,000 (7th)
2021: 880,000 (7th)
2031: 1,000,000 (8th)


*Winnipeg CMA*

2011: 730,000 (8th)
2021: 860,000 (8th)
2031: 1,010,000 (7th)


*Toronto CMA*

2011: 5,580,000 (1st)
2021: 6,500,000 (1st)
2031: 7,500,000 (1st)


----------



## Yuri S Andrade

^^
I really don't think those generous estimates will confirm. Focusing on the 2011-2011 period only, Canada will certainly grew under 10% in this decade, but we have the following growth rates for the main metro areas:

Toronto ------- 16.5%
Montreal ------ 13.6%
Vancouver ---- 16.9%
Ottawa -------- 19.4%
Calgary ------- 52.3%
Edmonton ---- 42.2%
Quebec ------- 14.3%
Winnipeg ----- 17.8%
Hamilton ------- 9.7%

With everybody growing so much above average, who will be under (much under) to compensate it?




koolkid said:


> Indeed, it can and it did. No one saw that huge drop coming. Reading these old comments is quite interesting considering how things actually turned out. I do think Chicago can make it to 3 million, maybe in 20 more years though.


I decided to check the earlier pages as well. It's indeed a very interesting exercise, showing us things can change very quickly.


----------



## isaidso

Yuri S Andrade said:


> ^^
> I really don't think those generous estimates will confirm. Focusing on the 2011-2011 period only, Canada will certainly grew under 10% in this decade, but we have the following growth rates for the main metro areas:
> 
> Toronto ------- 16.5%
> Montreal ------ 13.6%
> Vancouver ---- 16.9%
> Ottawa -------- 19.4%
> Calgary ------- 52.3%
> Edmonton ---- 42.2%
> Quebec ------- 14.3%
> Winnipeg ----- 17.8%
> Hamilton ------- 9.7%
> 
> With everybody growing so much above average, who will be under (much under) to compensate it?


Almost all of Canada's population growth occurs in the 10 largest metros. Rural Canada and the smaller cities and towns barely budge or show declines. There are a few outliers like Moncton, St. John's, and Ft. Mac but overall the population growth outside the 10 largest metros will be negligible over the next 15 years. A good case in point is St. John's. St. John's sees significant population growth even while Newfoundland's population flat lines.

This phenomenon can't continue indefinitely, but I do expect it to last at least another 15 years as the share of Canada's population in the big urban centres grows substantially. At that point, growth rates will either start falling rapidly or cities will have to start attracting more migrants from outside Canada.... sort of what Winnipeg has done. Winnipeg went from completely off immigrant's radar to being one of the biggest intake cities for Filipinos on the continent.

Canada will likely see population growth between 12-14% this decade. Growth would have to crater starting next year for the country to record population growth below 10% between 2011-2021.


----------



## isaidso

koolkid said:


> Reading these old comments is quite interesting considering how things actually turned out. I do think Chicago can make it to 3 million, maybe in 20 more years though.


It is interesting going back through threads from 4-5 years ago. Regarding the City of Chicago, how many people does it add each year? I'm under the impression that it's no longer losing population. It's weird not seeing Chicago in the top 10:


*America's 10 Largest Cities*

01 São Paulo 11,316,149 (2011)
02 Mexico City 8,851,080 (2010)
03 New York City 8,175,133 (2010)
04 Bogotá 7,613,303 (2011)
05 Lima 7,605,742 (2007)
06 Rio de Janeiro 6,355,949 (2011)
07 Santiago 5,084,038 (2010)
08 Los Angeles 4,045,873 (2011)
09 Buenos Aires 2,891,082 (2010)
10 Toronto 2,791,140 (2012)


----------



## Guajiro1

^^ That Top 10 doesn't consider metropolitan areas.


----------



## Marcus Mendell

Yuri S Andrade said:


> ^^
> isaidso, why every time you post figures for Toronto, it grows even faster?
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> *São Paulo*, as defined here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1940* ---- 3,466,376
> 
> *1950* ---- 4,851,880
> 
> *1960* ---- 7,751,071
> 
> *1970* --- 12,226,903
> 
> *1980* --- 18,738,357
> 
> *1991* --- 23,802,014
> 
> *2000* --- 28,111,603
> 
> *2010* --- 31,433,393
> 
> _*2020* --- 34,500,000
> 
> *2030* --- 37,000,000_



De onde vc tirou esses números, amiguinho? Bateu com a cabeça, foi? Para de pagar mico nos foruns internacionais, postando dados que, de cara, qualquer um vê que são falsos.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade

isaidso said:


> Canada will likely see population growth between 12-14% this decade. Growth would have to crater starting next year for the country to record population growth below 10% between 2011-2021.


1981-1991 --- 13.0%
1991-2001 --- 10.6%
2001-2011 --- 10.7%
_2011-2021 --- 14%?!?!_ (your estimates for CMAs suggest an even higher figure)

How come Canadian growth will jump like that when natural growth will be smaller than ever and immigration will likely to be smaller? Kept the current natural growth (which is unlikely), the country will add 1.2 million people over this decade. Kept the current net migration rates (which is also unlikely), the country will add 1.8-2.0 million people. That's 3.2 million in the best case scenario (or under 10% growth). It will be very hard to Canada to repeat the past decade when it comes to immigration, as it was something exceptional; and natural growth will follow it's natural course (falling).

Adding up the metro areas you brought, we got extra 3.625 million (!) people. And as you mentioned, there are other areas with decent growth (Saskatoon, Regina, Halifax, St. John's, etc.). 

And what about Calgary growing over 50% a decade?! How is that even possible? Historic:

1981-1991 --- 19.9%
1991-2001 --- 23.6%
2001-2011 --- 24.8%
_2011-2021 --- 52.3%?!?!_

I guess everybody wants their cities to grow bigger and bigger always. That's why we have those über-optimistic estimates.


----------



## isaidso

Yuri S Andrade said:


> 1981-1991 --- 13.0%
> 1991-2001 --- 10.6%
> 2001-2011 --- 10.7%
> _2011-2021 --- 14%?!?!_
> 
> How come Canadian growth will jump like that when natural growth will be smaller than ever and immigration will likely to be smaller?


Perhaps you should do a little more digging rather than extrapolating 10-20 year old data? The slowest annual growth rate this decade was 1.1% and immigration numbers haven't gone down, it's remained stable or increased.



Yuri S Andrade said:


> It will be very hard to Canada to repeat the past decade when it comes to immigration, as it was something exceptional;


The last decade for immigration was nothing special at all for Canada and is historically at a lower rate than normal. Canada attracted over 400,000 immigrants back in 1913 when our national population was only 7,632,000. Your conclusions are based on personal perception rather than the reality. In 2014, 500,000+ immigrants would be exceptional for Canada; 280,000 is not. 



Yuri S Andrade said:


> Adding up the metro areas you brought, we got extra 3.625 million (!) people. And as you mentioned, there are other areas with decent growth (Saskatoon, Regina, Halifax, St. John's, etc.).


You conveniently ignored the part where I explained to you that the top 10 metros absorb practically all population growth. Growth in places like St. John's is balanced by population decline in Newfoundland. There's population change outside the top 10, but overall growth is basically zero.

I explained both of those thing to you already.



Yuri S Andrade said:


> And what about Calgary growing over 50% a decade?! How is that even possible? Historic:
> 
> 1981-1991 --- 19.9%
> 1991-2001 --- 23.6%
> 2001-2011 --- 24.8%
> _2011-2021 --- 52.3%?!?!_


You realize Calgary added 60,000 people last year alone? Edmonton added 50,000. Not only is Alberta attracting huge numbers of Canadians, but it's become a major immigrant magnet as well. There's a reason why Toronto's annual increase is down from a few years ago. It's called Alberta. Below is the list of the top immigrant cities in Canada and the US. I put a check next to Canadian cities.

*Net international migration (CMAs/MSAs): 2012-2013*

01. New York: 128,042
02. Toronto: 80,483 :check:
03. Miami: 52,706
04. Los Angeles: 49,798
05. Montreal: 45,241 :check:
06. Washington: 36,871
07. Vancouver: 31,719 :check:
08. Houston: 25,504
09. Boston: 24,116
10. Calgary: 23,817 :check:
11. Chicago: 23,646
12. San Francisco: 23,534
13. Dallas: 19,501
14. Edmonton: 18,673 :check:
15. Philadelphia: 17,520
16. Seattle: 17,044
17. Atlanta: 16,910
18. Orlando: 14,725
19. San Jose: 14,124
20. San Diego: 11,720
21. Winnipeg: 11,715 :check:
22. Minneapolis: 10,374
23. Detroit: 10,366


Stats Canada, Annual demographic estimates, Net international migration
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/91-214-x/2012000/t006-eng.pdf
US Census Bureau, Population estimates
https://www.census.gov/popest/data/metro/totals/2013/index.html


----------



## isaidso

Guajiro1 said:


> ^^ That Top 10 doesn't consider metropolitan areas.


You have a knack for stating the obvious. Do people not know what city population means? :dunno:


----------



## Manitopiaaa

isaidso said:


> *Calgary CMA*
> 
> 2011: 1,215,000 (5th)
> 2021: 1,850,000 (4th)
> 2031: 2,550,000 (4th)
> 
> 
> *Edmonton CMA*
> 
> 2011: 1,160,000 (6th)
> 2021: 1,650,000 (5th)
> 2031: 2,300,000 (5th)
> 
> 
> *Ottawa CMA*
> 
> 2011: 1,240,000 (4th)
> 2021: 1,480,000 (6th)
> 2031: 1,750,000 (6th)
> 
> 
> *Montreal CMA*
> 
> 2011: 3,830,000 (2nd)
> 2021: 4,350,000 (2nd)
> 2031: 4,900,000 (2nd)
> 
> 
> *Vancouver CMA*
> 
> 2011: 2,310,000 (3rd)
> 2021: 2,700,000 (3rd)
> 2031: 3,100,000 (3rd)


Montreal is not going to be at 4,900,000 in 16 years. Montreal will be around 4,400,000 if it's lucky. Calgary will be around 1,750,000. Calgary at 2,550,000 is wayy too rosy. Edmonton will be around 1,650,000 not 2,300,000. You are predicting that Canada's growth will continue for another 17 years and in many cases nearly double. Are Canadians having babies like rabbits? Are all Chinese moving to Canada? Where is this magical growth coming from? Vancouver makes sense. Ottawa maybe but it's probably still too high. Kitchener at 750,000 is way too high. I'd say 600-650k at most. Hamilton might crack 850k but that's pushing it. Hamilton at 920k is wishful thinking. Quebec City under current growth rates will be at around 950k by 2031. Expecting faster growth than today with all the demographic and migration indicators showing otherwise isn't prudent. Winnipeg won't crack 900k, much less 1 million. Toronto at 7.5 million is possible only if current growth rates continue, which I'm dubious about. Not to mention when that Canadian bubble pops, all these estimates will have to be revised downward.


----------



## Manitopiaaa

The biggest performers in the US among metros over 500k. These are the fastest growing in the US. I've shied away from boosterism so while I'll hope these cities grow even faster than faster, these figures are grounded in reality (namely, the US Census Bureau estimates)

2031 Populations for Top 6 Biggest Performers by 2010-2012 growth %:

Austin, TX
2010: 1,716,000
2012: 1,834,000
2020: ~2,200,000-2,300,000
2030: ~2,600,000-2,700,000
Note: Could absorb some adjacent counties, but the population gain would be less than 100,000 unless it absorbs Killeen-Temple-Belton which is highly unlikely. 

Charleston, SC
2010: 665,000
2012: 697,000
2020: ~800,000
2030: ~950,000-~1,000,000
Note: I anticipate growth to remain stable due to the increasing numbers of baby boomers and the area's reputation with retiring snowbirds. Definite possibility it absorbs Beaufort County (pop. 2000: 121,000; pop. 2012: 172,000) which could add another 250,000+ by 2030 to around ~1,200,000 to ~1,250,000

Columbus-Auburn-Opelika, GA-AL
2010: 469,000
2012: 492,000
2020: ~550,000
2030: ~600,000-650,000
Note: I think growth this decade will be much slower than that of 2010-2012 so I expect a marked slowdown of the average 12,000+ gain of the last two years which would peg Columbus at over 710,000. I think growth picks up a bit from 2020-2030 as some seepage from the Atlanta exurbs begins entering Greater Columbus. But that will probably be just an increase of a few thousand from the 2010-2020 numbers

Provo-Orem, UT
2010: 527,000
2012: 551,000
2020: ~650,000
2030: ~750,000
Note: Growth should stay about at the same levels for the foreseeable future. The city's increasing relevance as a tech hub and college town could bring higher than expected numbers. A lot more Hispanics could move to the area ala Logan up north which could definitely shake things up. But Provo-Orem will remain a major growth area of the US, buoyed by high fertility amongst Mormons

Raleigh, NC
2010: 1,913,000
2012: 1,999,000
2020: ~2,300,000
2030: ~2,500,000-2,600,000
Note: Marginal drop-off as time goes by. It would be favored to merge with Durham by 2030 which would add another 650,000 or so by 2030 for a possible metropolitan population of 3,250,000. Definitely a high-growth corridor

San Antonio, TX
2010: 2,143,000
2012: 2,234,000
2020: ~2,500,000-2,600,000
2030: ~3,000,000
Note: San Antonio's definitely reaching a critical mass ala Dallas or Houston. It is gaining nearly 50,000 a year which would be another 900,000 by 2030 or 3,134,000 if you don't expect any drop-off. I think the drop-off will be marginal though given the demographics from the Hispanic population. And unlike places like El Paso or Phoenix that saw a bigger drop in population growth from the collapse in Latino international immigration, San Antonio has a lot more of a domestic Latino mix so the drop-off will have to be from lower fertility but could be offset by a higher critical mass (ala what is happening in Denver and Seattle)

Other major changes in the rankings could come from San Francisco finally absorbing San Jose (or maybe even Vallejo). Los Angeles absorbing the Inland Empire, Orlando absorbing both Volusia and Polk (maybe even Brevard), Tampa absorbing Sarasota-Bradenton, and Boston expanding further into NH or absorbing Worcester (less likely)


----------



## Yuri S Andrade

About Canada:

2011-2021 Canada won't grow more than 2001-2011 Canada. Maybe in absolute terms it might get equal, but in relative, no chance. For obvious reasons, natural growth will get always smaller and immigration should be bigger and and you acknowledges that it's on the same level. Canada relies heavily in countries with falling demographic growth, but fast economic one. These sources tend to exhaust. In any case, Canada was growing for the past 20 years in a 10%/decade pace. A 40% jump to 14% from nowhere is something that just doesn't happen.

Calgary growing 6% a year? I'm sorry, but that's impossible. It's completely inconsistent with the city recent growth, and almost 3 times faster than the fast-growing cities in North America (Austin, Raleigh). A jump from 24%/decade to 52%/decade is clearly impossible.

Anyway, 2016 Census is not far away, and I bet growth will be smaller than 2006-2011.


----------



## Union Man

*London*



*City proper poplulation*

*2001:* 7.2 million

*2011:* 8.2 million

*2014:* 8.5 million

*2020:* 9.1 million​


----------



## isaidso

^^ Do you think that most of the people in poorer EU nations who wanted to move to London have already done so and that London will return to more typical intake levels?



Yuri S Andrade said:


> 2011-2021 Canada won't grow more than 2001-2011 Canada.


We'll see. 

My estimate of 12-14% growth between 2011 and 2012 is far below the 'high growth' projection of 16.9% growth put out by Statistics Canada. Canada only needs a population of between 37,486,400 and 38,155,800 by 2021 for my 12%-14% growth prediction to be correct. Considering Canada is already at 35 million and grows by around 400,000/year my prediction looks realistic.

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



Yuri S Andrade said:


> Calgary growing 6% a year?


It's actually 4.5% annual growth. Calgary has been growing quickly for 8 decades and has seen this kind of growth before. This city's population growth ranges from fast to super charged depending on circumstances. Alberta as a whole is encountering one of its high growth spurts. 

The income disparity between Alberta and most of Canada, the number of multi-billion dollar projects coming on stream, the baby boom, and becoming an immigrant magnet will ensure that this boom won't be a 2 year blip. The stars are aligned for Alberta right now and it will be a while before they move out of alignment. The super charged growth won't last forever, but it has legs in the near term.

Calgary attracted more international migrants than Chicago in 2012-2013, Edmonton attracted almost as many as Dallas. Per capita income of $79,000 in Alberta (and no provincial sales tax) will do that.


----------



## isaidso

Manitopiaaa said:


> Are Canadians having babies like rabbits?


Sure yeah, that's what it's based on.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade

isaidso said:


> ^^ Do you think that most of the people in poorer EU nations who wanted to move to London have already done so and that London will return to more typical intake levels?


Unlike Canada then. 

After a decade with extremely high influx of immigrants, creating worldwide commented booms in Canadian cities, Canada not only will keep those extremely high levels, but double it.




isaidso said:


> We'll see.
> 
> My estimate of 12-14% growth between 2011 and 2012 is far below the 'high growth' projection of 16.9% growth put out by Statistics Canada. Canada only needs a population of between 37,486,400 and 38,155,800 by 2021 for my 12%-14% growth prediction to be correct. Considering Canada is already at 35 million and grows by around 400,000/year my prediction looks realistic.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_of_Canada


There is nothing suggesting Canada is growing more now than in the past two decades. Natural surplus is flat, immigration surplus is flat. And as the population is bigger now, it means necessarily a smaller growth for the decade. As I said, a jump from 10% to 14% would be something huge and extremely unlikely.

Said that, Canadian estimates are usually extremely generous and when the Census comes, they have to adjust down. The same happened in 2011. Look how bizarre: between Census 2006-2011, 5.9% growth. Between 2011-2016, 9.2%. Impossible. 2016 is just around the corner and we'll see those 9% turning into 5%.




isaidso said:


> It's actually 4.5% annual growth. Calgary has been growing quickly for 8 decades and has seen this kind of growth before. This city's population growth ranges from fast to super charged depending on circumstances. Alberta as a whole is encountering one of its high growth spurts.
> 
> The income disparity between Alberta and most of Canada, the number of multi-billion dollar projects coming on stream, the baby boom, and becoming an immigrant magnet will ensure that this boom won't be a 2 year blip. The stars are aligned for Alberta right now and it will be a while before they move out of alignment. The super charged growth won't last forever, but it has legs in the near term.
> 
> Calgary attracted more international migrants than Chicago in 2012-2013, Edmonton attracted almost as many as Dallas. Per capita income of $79,000 in Alberta (and no provincial sales tax) will do that.


As I posted here, at least in the past 3 decades (decades of fast growth for the city), Calgary grew nowhere near it. In fact, those numbers are suggesting a jump from 24% to 52% per decade, again, something unprecedent in the history of world's demography.


----------



## SE9

isaidso said:


> Do you think that most of the people in poorer EU nations who wanted to move to London have already done so and that London will return to more typical intake levels?


Migrants from 'poorer EU nations' aren't the sole or primary driving factor behind London's population growth.

All indications are that the city's population will grow by more between 2011-2021 than it did between 2001-2011.


----------



## Union Man

SE9 said:


> Migrants from 'poorer EU nations' aren't the sole or primary driving factor behind London's population growth.
> 
> All indications are that the city's population will grow by more between 2011-2021 than it did between 2001-2011.


SE9 is right, London absorbs much of the UK's internal migration, this being the young and educated looking for work and more opportunities. 

The data i used is from the Greater London Authority (GLA) 2013 estimates, which include three models, low, middle and high projections. However the three model projection does not come into effect until 2020. So from 2011 the last census to 2019 the estimate is uniform, GLA throughout the last decade have always undercounted and given low projections. They got a shock by the 2011 census data for just how much they undercounted and so as well the UK as a whole.


----------



## Manitopiaaa

Union Man said:


> *London*
> 
> 
> 
> *City proper poplulation*
> 
> *2001:* 7.2 million
> 
> *2011:* 8.2 million
> 
> *2014:* 8.5 million
> 
> *2020:* 9.1 million​


These are for Greater London. What are the figures for Southeast England? Or Eastern England? Will they be growing faster or slower than London proper?


----------



## memph

isaidso said:


> We'll see.
> 
> My estimate of 12-14% growth between 2011 and 2012 is far below the 'high growth' projection of 16.9% growth put out by Statistics Canada. Canada only needs a population of between 37,486,400 and 38,155,800 by 2021 for my 12%-14% growth prediction to be correct. Considering Canada is already at 35 million and grows by around 400,000/year my prediction looks realistic.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_of_Canada


It was growing by about 373,000 per year from 2006 to 2011. The most recent estimates (2012 and 2013) have a little over 400,000 per year. The high growth projection would mean 600,000 per year or so though, I have no idea where they pulled that number out from. What makes you think the 400k+ per year trend of the last 2 years will hold rather than the lower growth recorded in the past (ex 373k)? Or what do you think caused the net growth to increase in 2012/2013 vs 2006-2011?

By the way, 400k per year is 12%, 14% seems rather unlikely.


----------



## SE9

Manitopiaaa said:


> These are for Greater London. What are the figures for Southeast England? Or Eastern England? Will they be growing faster or slower than London proper?



According to the Office for National Statistics, population growth from 2011 to 2021:



*London:* 8,204,000 → 9,371,000
+1,167,000
+14.2%


*South East of England:* 8,653,000 → 9,453,000 
+800,000
+9.2%	


*East of England:* 5,862,000 → 6,458,000
+596,000
+10.2% 


*Entire London SE Region:* 22,719,000 → 25,282,000
+2,563,000
+11.3% 


They'll grow slower than London proper.


----------



## Union Man

wjfox said:


> London is forecast to overtake New York's population in the near future.





polako said:


> No. It will never happen.


With this data it is looking more evidently that London has now surpassed the population of New York City. As I stated a few posts ago the population of London 2014 is estimated at 8.5 million or 8,556,566 to be precise.

ONS population statistics for 2013 will be released next month, so this will verify it. Any guys from the Americas on here have population statistics for New York City? I know there was an article in the New York Times about it being 8.4 million 2013.


----------



## Jay

Union Man said:


> With this data it is looking more evidently that London has now surpassed the population of New York City. As I stated a few posts ago the population of London 2014 is estimated at 8.5 million or 8,556,566 to be precise.
> 
> ONS population statistics for 2013 will be released next month, so this will verify it. Any guys from the Americas on here have population statistics for New York City? I know there was an article in the New York Times about it being 8.4 million 2013.


Those are just city propers, greater London is quite a bit smaller than NYC (12 million vs. 20 million)


----------



## SE9

Jay said:


> Those are just city propers, greater London is quite a bit smaller than NYC (12 million vs. 20 million)


'Greater London' is the name of London's city proper. It is home to 8,308,369 (ONS 2012 mid-year estimate).


----------



## Union Man

Jay said:


> Those are just city propers, greater London is quite a bit smaller than NYC (12 million vs. 20 million)


Correct those are city proper. However if your using the 20 million figure for NYC then you are either using the metro area or CSA area, the former area is 13,318 sq miles.

Such vast areas are incomparable with other city's much smaller sized statistical areas, so ill make a comparison to roughly 13,318 sq miles for London. 

*Area + Population*

*London* - 607 sq miles - 8,308,369

*South East England* - 7,373 sq miles - 8,635,000

*East of England* - 5,308 sq miles - 4,987,600
(Without Norfolk)

*Total* - 13,288 sq miles - 21,930,969

So to conclude an area of 13,288 sq miles for London, slightly smaller then New York's 13,318 sq miles would have a population of *21,930,969*


----------



## TheMoses

I've said much the same thing before on a different thread when this came up. People think New York has a population of 20mln - it doesn't. To get that many people you need to take an area that is massive and doesn't really in any way relate to New York as people perceive it.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=105340347&highlight=#post105340347


----------



## techniques1200s

TheMoses said:


> I've said much the same thing before on a different thread when this came up. People think New York has a population of 20mln - it doesn't. To get that many people you need to take an area that is massive and doesn't really in any way relate to New York as people perceive it.
> 
> http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=105340347&highlight=#post105340347


It's called a "metropolitan area".


----------



## isaidso

memph said:


> It was growing by about 373,000 per year from 2006 to 2011. The most recent estimates (2012 and 2013) have a little over 400,000 per year. The high growth projection would mean 600,000 per year or so though, I have no idea where they pulled that number out from. What makes you think the 400k+ per year trend of the last 2 years will hold rather than the lower growth recorded in the past (ex 373k)? Or what do you think caused the net growth to increase in 2012/2013 vs 2006-2011?
> 
> By the way, 400k per year is 12%, 14% seems rather unlikely.


373,000/year in the 2006-2011 period was off a smaller base population. Just maintaining growth rates would suggest the total number increases each year. Canada does seem to maintain growth rates, and the 400,000+ numbers for the past 2 years is in line with that. 

Annual Canadian population growth since 2010
2010-2011: 359,000
2011-2012: 376,000
2012-2013: 398,000
2013-2014: 404,000 

It's gone up every single year this decade. I'm not suggesting that this means it will continue to do so indefinitely, but 12-14% growth is very attainable for Canada 2011-2021 considering the numbers posted since 2011.

I agree that Stats Canada's 600,000/year high growth scenario isn't going to happen.... unless they know something we don't know. The feds would have to bump up our immigrant intake substantially to get that kind of growth.


----------



## memph

Union Man said:


> Correct those are city proper. However if your using the 20 million figure for NYC then you are either using the metro area or CSA area, the former area is 13,318 sq miles.
> 
> Such vast areas are incomparable with other city's much smaller sized statistical areas, so ill make a comparison to roughly 13,318 sq miles for London.
> 
> *Area + Population*
> 
> *London* - 607 sq miles - 8,308,369
> 
> *South East England* - 7,373 sq miles - 8,635,000
> 
> *East of England* - 5,308 sq miles - 4,987,600
> (Without Norfolk)
> 
> *Total* - 13,288 sq miles - 21,930,969
> 
> So to conclude an area of 13,288 sq miles for London, slightly smaller then New York's 13,318 sq miles would have a population of *21,930,969*


Yeah I agree that the difference between NYC and London is not that big, however, I still say NYC is bigger. NYC, plus the 10 inner counties of NY and NJ have 16.5 million people in 2700 square miles. The inner 2000 square miles of Greater New York have about 14.5 million people (delineated by county). London might be around 12 and 10 million respectively for similar sized areas? 

Plus, I think New York's suburbs feel more connected but I could be wrong.


----------



## TheMoses

memph said:


> Yeah I agree that the difference between NYC and London is not that big, however, I still say NYC is bigger.


I would agree with that. I just think it's silly when people say London's 8 million and New York is 18 million. New York is definitely not over twice the size. If I had to put a number to it based on gut feel alone I'd say New York is probably a quarter to a third bigger.



memph said:


> NYC, plus the 10 inner counties of NY and NJ have 16.5 million people in 2700 square miles. The inner 2000 square miles of Greater New York have about 14.5 million people (delineated by county). London might be around 12 and 10 million respectively for similar sized areas?


I'd guess about 12 million now. According to Wikipedia (questionable reliability I know) there are 15 million people in London's metro area which is 3,236 sq miles.

New York is certainly denser in for a long way but then will drop off in a way London doesn't because England's population density is so much higher than the US's. I suspect they are probably equal somewhere around 4,000 sq miles and maybe 17 or 18 million people.



memph said:


> Plus, I think New York's suburbs feel more connected but I could be wrong.


I think that is and isn't true. In terms of connectivity and transport I suspect London is actually more connected to its suburbs.

But you'd often find those suburbs in London would consider themselves not London, whereas maybe in New York they would consider themselves part of New York. I think it comes down to many of these suburbs having been independent towns or villages for far longer than they've been part of London.


----------



## Metro007

New York has a continuous urban-aera of about 2-3 the size of the London's one! Since we know that NY is a little bit larger than L.A. you can compare the follwoing urban areas (at the same scale - you have to zoom in!) made by spotila:

London:
http://i.imgur.com/2qj2N.jpg

L.A.:
http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/2001/la100.jpg

So talking about the size, London is much more smaller than NY. Then, talking about population of the metropolitan area, it's about 13-14 Mio for London and around 20 Mio for NY. So NY is about 50% more populated.


----------



## SE9

Metro007 said:


> New York has a continuous urban-aera of about 2-3 the size of the London's one.
> 
> So talking about the size, London is much more smaller than NY


That's because there's a decades-old policy of having a Green Belt to contain the London urban area.

The Green Belt is protected open land that encircles London hence restricting the spread of its urban footprint.





Metro007 said:


> Then, talking about population of the metropolitan area, it's about 13-14 Mio for London and around 20 Mio for NY. So NY is about 50% more populated.


See the conversation in posts above.


----------



## TheMoses

Metro007 said:


> So talking about the size, London is much more smaller than NY. Then, talking about population of the metropolitan area, it's about 13-14 Mio for London and around 20 Mio for NY. So NY is about 50% more populated.


*Sigh*

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=105340347&postcount=6958

OR

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=113871392&postcount=220


----------



## memph

TheMoses said:


> I would agree with that. I just think it's silly when people say London's 8 million and New York is 18 million. New York is definitely not over twice the size. If I had to put a number to it based on gut feel alone I'd say New York is probably a quarter to a third bigger.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd guess about 12 million now. According to Wikipedia (questionable reliability I know) there are 15 million people in London's metro area which is 3,236 sq miles.
> 
> New York is certainly denser in for a long way but then will drop off in a way London doesn't because England's population density is so much higher than the US's. I suspect they are probably equal somewhere around 4,000 sq miles and maybe 17 or 18 million people.
> 
> 
> 
> I think that is and isn't true. In terms of connectivity and transport I suspect London is actually more connected to its suburbs.
> 
> But you'd often find those suburbs in London would consider themselves not London, whereas maybe in New York they would consider themselves part of New York. I think it comes down to many of these suburbs having been independent towns or villages for far longer than they've been part of London.


So I tried to find the population of the inner 2500 square miles of Metropolitan London by adding up the denser districts adjacent to Greater London, and I'm getting about 12-12.5 million people. Going by county, you get about 16 million for New York City in a similar land area, however, these counties are larger than UK districts and include a fair bit of sparsely populated land. Unlike Metro London though, where the sparsely populated land is between the towns and Greater London, with Metro New York, it's usually located beyond the more developed suburbs/commuter towns. 

So if you define the area at the census tract level, you could get something denser while still being contiguous, which gives about 18 million people in the inner 2500 square miles with an area hugging the coast from Toms River to Bridgeport, and also extending inland to include Peekskill, Dover, Somerville and Mahwah. That's quite a bit denser than the official urban area, which is only 350,000 more people but almost 1000 square miles larger.

http://images-mediawiki-sites.thefullwiki.org/06/2/8/5/49795983751213473.gif

The area I've taken is similar, but cuts out many of the inland "tentacles" which are mostly low density suburbs and satellite towns, and adds coastal Fairfield County.


----------



## the spliff fairy

TheMoses said:


> New York is certainly denser in for a long way but then will drop off in a way London doesn't because England's population density is so
> much higher than the US's. I suspect they are probably equal somewhere around 4,000 sq miles and maybe 17 or 18 million people.
> 
> 
> 
> I think that is and isn't true. In terms of connectivity and transport I suspect London is actually more connected to its suburbs.
> 
> But you'd often find those suburbs in London would consider themselves not London, whereas maybe in New York they would consider
> themselves part of New York. I think it comes down to many of these suburbs having been independent towns or villages for far longer
> than they've been part of London.


London has the protected Green Belt, which means people have to hopscotch it over before density rises again. But the population is
growing so fast, both in the city and the metro, with so many commuters putting pressure on the 14 rail termini in the centre, the
legislation to prevent the sprawl's being dismantled.

Also the thing to add, the NYC style CSA counts commuters only into the next town along - not necessarily the centre. Less than 10% 
(of the 10-30% margin needed, in other words as low as 1%) actually make it into the 5 boroughs. The CSA could roughly be considered 
as 5 rings due to its increasingly lax 'add-ons' over the years- 1. Manhattan, then 2. the five boroughs, then roughly 3. the city 
contiguous, then 4. a vast ring that takes in mostly countryside but counts commuters that travel toward the next town (the 10-30% 
margin), then lastly 5. a further expansion from 2008 that is even vaster and that doubles the size of everything before it put together. 
Finally one county in Pennsylvania gets added as bizarrely, they state it gets NYC tv coverage (it would actually have a better argument 
with commuting). All in all this area is now larger than Wales and Northern Ireland combined.

Anyhoo, in short NYC has more contiguous sprawl - it is the bigger city in that respect with 16 million?. London contiguous stops at about 
13 million, where the protected rural boundaries were laid out in the 60s and 70s.

However on CSA terms - especially the commuting-to-the-next-town, London could go on interminably, as so many British towns are 
surrounded by anti-sprawl legislation and resultant commuter dormitories etc. On catchment area size London works out at 22 million, but 
on commuting it's anyone's guess.

This is the Green Belt effect - artificially highlight the urban areas and one sees the vast scale of the 'peppering' effect, of high density 
dormitories (generally the light pink new builds) that commute into one another. This stretches way off shot and into the rest of England, 
which crams about 48 million urbanites into the size of Maine:


----------



## Blah

Union Man said:


> Correct those are city proper. However if your using the 20 million figure for NYC then you are either using the metro area or CSA area, the former area is 13,318 sq miles.
> 
> Such vast areas are incomparable with other city's much smaller sized statistical areas, so ill make a comparison to roughly 13,318 sq miles for London.
> 
> *Area + Population*
> 
> *London* - 607 sq miles - 8,308,369
> 
> *South East England* - 7,373 sq miles - 8,635,000
> 
> *East of England* - 5,308 sq miles - 4,987,600
> (Without Norfolk)
> 
> *Total* - 13,288 sq miles - 21,930,969
> 
> So to conclude an area of 13,288 sq miles for London, slightly smaller then New York's 13,318 sq miles would have a population of *21,930,969*


Very interesting. The UK, and England in particular, is very dense population wise so it makes sense that the way they calculate city size would be very conservative. I find this to be the case with a lot of Europe.


----------



## the spliff fairy

Oh yeah, and the other thing, don't go by the scales used on Google Maps/ Earth. They aren't accurate (a problem with their zoom) - which is why sometimes you go somewhere new, consult the map and think it's a walkable distance to the hotel/ train station/ emergency ward but end up on seemingly interminably longer journeys. Don't get me started on this... the amount of times Ive been hauling luggage across towns and borders, and almost missing flights.

On SSP someone showed London from GE (stating it was only 25 miles across) was smaller than Toronto according to the scale, but if you actually measured/ looked up the distances from edge to edge/ point to point you realise it's 1.5 to 2x larger than it says. I used to think they were mixing up km= miles, but I think it's the zoom/ satellite height?


----------



## Jonesy55

Union Man said:


> Correct those are city proper. However if your using the 20 million figure for NYC then you are either using the metro area or CSA area, the former area is 13,318 sq miles.
> 
> Such vast areas are incomparable with other city's much smaller sized statistical areas, so ill make a comparison to roughly 13,318 sq miles for London.
> 
> *Area + Population*
> 
> *London* - 607 sq miles - 8,308,369
> 
> *South East England* - 7,373 sq miles - 8,635,000
> 
> *East of England* - 5,308 sq miles - 4,987,600
> (Without Norfolk)
> 
> *Total* - 13,288 sq miles - 21,930,969
> 
> So to conclude an area of 13,288 sq miles for London, slightly smaller then New York's 13,318 sq miles would have a population of *21,930,969*


I think using that area is too big for the London metro, in the outer parts people are much more likely to be commuting to Brighton, Portsmouth, Southampton, Reading, Oxford, Milton Keynes or Cambridge than into London. Margate, Ipswich or the Isle of Wight are not particularly connected economically to London either.

The EU LUZ definition, shown below as the middle boundary compared to Greater London as the smallest and London+SE+East as the biggest, gives a population of about 13.4m in an area of 3,440 square miles.










I would say that's a more reasonable definition though it could probably be expanded a bit.


----------



## Metro007

That's a joke...nobody can say esactly when talking about the population (i read somewhere of 24 millions for the NY-metropolitan area). It depends on the definition and every user can almost put the limit of the CSA where he wants. So this is some kind of nonsense. But about the size, just look once again the difference beetween L.A. and London:

London:
http://i.imgur.com/2qj2N.jpg

L.A.:
http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/2001/la100.jpg

And NY is 10% larger than L.A. ! So you will have an idea of the difference. American cities are just HUGE.

And these 2 maps are 100% at the same scale (made by spotila). So please just stop comparinge London to NY 

And sorry i cant see any green belt on the maps. It perhaps exists but dont makes a difference here, since the US-cities are just huge.


----------



## Metro007

the spliff fairy said:


> Oh yeah, and the other thing, don't go by the scales used on Google Maps/ Earth. They aren't accurate (a problem with their zoom) - which is why sometimes you go somewhere new, consult the map and think it's a walkable distance to the hotel/ train station/ emergency ward but end up on seemingly interminably longer journeys. Don't get me started on this... the amount of times Ive been hauling luggage across towns and borders, and almost missing flights.
> 
> On SSP someone showed London from GE (stating it was only 25 miles across) was smaller than Toronto according to the scale, but if you actually measured/ looked up the distances from edge to edge/ point to point you realise it's 1.5 to 2x larger than it says. I used to think they were mixing up km= miles, but I think it's the zoom/ satellite height?


Are you refering to the maps i posted the link? If yes so: there are exactly at the same scale because they were adapted to the same zoom-level in google-earth (yes i know in google-maps there are some differences in scale beetween the cities, but this was taken into account here).


----------



## Jonesy55

^^ I think you are confusing 'built up area' with 'metro area'. US planning policy allows for gradually less dense housing to be built continually outwards while UK planning policy does not, instead you get a gap followed by another settlement. But the people in those settlements beyond the gaps still relate to the core city in the same way that people in the outer suburbs of a US city do, commuting there to work, using the leisure and shopping facilities there.

The difference being that the commuter into London from the outer part of the metro area will pass through several towns with small gaps between them on their train to work while the commuter into NYC will pass through more continuous low density suburban housing. For the purposes of a metro area both are the same, though obviously New York's continuously built up urban footprint is bigger.


----------



## Metro007

If some user here wants to take the whole south-east-England to compare it with the NY-CSA, so i would just take the whole BOS-WASH-area with about...50? 60 millions?


----------



## Jonesy55

That would be far bigger than SE England. Washington DC to Boston is further than London to Aberdeen in Northern Scotland so that would be more comparable to the whole of the UK.


----------



## Metro007

deleted


----------



## Metro007

Jonesy55 said:


> ^^ I think you are confusing 'built up area' with 'metro area'. US planning policy allows for gradually less dense housing to be built continually outwards while UK planning policy does not, instead you get a gap followed by another settlement. But the people in those settlements beyond the gaps still relate to the core city in the same way that people in the outer suburbs of a US city do, commuting there to work, using the leisure and shopping facilities there.
> 
> The difference being that the commuter into London from the outer part of the metro area will pass through several towns with small gaps between them on their train to work while the commuter into NYC will pass through more continuous low density suburban housing. For the purposes of a metro area both are the same, though obviously New York's continuously built up urban footprint is bigger.


I am not confusing it. The problem is that every country has other definitions of what a "Metropolitan area" is. Just take a look at the german ones for example: they take almost the whole "bundesland" around it...so you can't compare these numbers. In other threads some people could show for example that Paris has more population in its metro area than London and London will have more only if you count the area around of this Metro. But can we? Why? Where to stop? CAn we for example count the Blue Banana as a single metro? You will see that there are no exact definitions and we can put the limits where we want. At which percent of commuters are you adding a town/village to a metro of the core city? Are you sure the are comparable to the ones used in NY? So once again: you can't compare these numbers. That's why the only fair comparaison is to take only the continuous urban area, that can be calculated on a pretty exact way based on Google.


----------



## Jonesy55

^^ Taking an easy to measure definition just because it is easy to measure though is pointless if it doesn't actually mean anything in terms of how far the influence of a city extends. I agree that more standardization of how metro areas are measured is needed, the EU LUZ areas are a good start in that direction but are still far from ideal in many cases.


----------



## the spliff fairy

This is the thing with the Green Belt - it's green but it's not a 'belt'. It's the areas surrounding every small town and village that's been protected for decades, so this creates a peppering effect rather than the usual blanketing suburbia that adjuncts a normal city.

Note the difference in this highlighting of the urban areas:

http://i.imgur.com/2qj2N.jpg

and this one (especially the lighter pink ones):

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=113936885&postcount=230


That's the difference. If you took one sq mile of low density NA suburbia and applied it to London, instead youd get 6 small cramped, high density communities covering about the same urban footprint but far less in terms of gardens and roads etc, and in smaller denser housing (the smallest in the West- 25% smaller than the Japanese even), all interspersed with acres of protected rural land instead of gardens. One of those 6 communities would be a larger established olde world village/ market town, the others would be dormitory developments. Run a motorway through it and a rail line into London, and youve got London's new version of suburbia.


In short London's boundaries have been artificially limited. If you want to see the true size of the place you have to include the dense peppering.

The jury's still out as to whether the Green Belt idea has actually protected the land, or just created a much larger amorphous urban-rural blurring.


----------



## the spliff fairy

Metro007 said:


> I am not confusing it. The problem is that every country has other definitions of what a "Metropolitan area" is. Just take a look at the german ones for example: they take almost the whole "bundesland" around it...so you can't compare these numbers. In other threads some people could show for example that Paris has more population in its metro area than London and London will have more only if you count the area around of this Metro. But can we? Why? Where to stop? CAn we for example count the Blue Banana as a single metro? You will see that there are no exact definitions and we can put the limits where we want. At which percent of commuters are you adding a town/village to a metro of the core city? Are you sure the are comparable to the ones used in NY? So once again: you can't compare these numbers. That's why the only fair comparaison is to take only the continuous urban area, that can be calculated on a pretty exact way based on Google.


This is why the US CSA style counts cannot be used elsewhere. If we pretend the CSA's were measured by population density, youd take in the Blue Banana (and some) as one 'CSA'. Places like the Nile Valley and Bangladesh would become 'cities' nearing 100 million. Likewise with urban footprint density. However CSA's are not measured by population or built environment, but by commuting patterns (and on a pretty low threshold), - not into a single source city but into each others towns. This of course presents the same problem in Europe and elsewhere, much of the Western continent would become one CSA due to the huge amount of networking.


----------



## Phoenyxar

the spliff fairy said:


> The jury's still out as to whether the Green Belt idea has actually protected the land, or just created a much larger amorphous urban-rural blurring.


 Well, it did create a very dense way of housing and on itself I think that's quite a good result. A standard sprawl may have created a more urbanised whole, but then again you'd have lost quite the valuable and perhaps fertile land needed to sustain it all. Dense urban areas and limited sprawl is something every country should try to achieve in its own way.

The Green Belt around London in that way is comparable to how the Dutch tried to build up their cities, by keeping everything compact, dense and in some way relatively small.

In the meantime a question arises in a neighbouring country, amongst the bravest of all the Gauls... "What the hell is urban planning?"








I tried to find results and predictions for some Belgian cities, it is a bit harder than it should be.


----------



## Metro007

Jonesy55 said:


> ^^ Taking an easy to measure definition just because it is easy to measure though is pointless if it doesn't actually mean anything in terms of how far the influence of a city extends. I agree that more standardization of how metro areas are measured is needed, the EU LUZ areas are a good start in that direction but are still far from ideal in many cases.


I agree with that.


----------



## memph

the spliff fairy said:


> Also the thing to add, the NYC style CSA counts commuters only into the next town along - not necessarily the centre. Less than 10%
> (of the 10-30% margin needed, in other words as low as 1%) actually make it into the 5 boroughs. The CSA could roughly be considered
> as 5 rings due to its increasingly lax 'add-ons' over the years- 1. Manhattan, then 2. the five boroughs, then roughly 3. the city
> contiguous, then 4. a vast ring that takes in mostly countryside but counts commuters that travel toward the next town (the 10-30%
> margin), then lastly 5. a further expansion from 2008 that is even vaster and that doubles the size of everything before it put together.
> Finally one county in Pennsylvania gets added as bizarrely, they state it gets NYC tv coverage (it would actually have a better argument
> with commuting).


I thought you were exaggerating at first, but it looks like you might be right.

0.96% of New Haven County workers commute to NYC proper for work. And actually, I'm not even sure it's that much higher for commuting into NYC suburbs. I'm lazy to add up the data for the whole county, but looking at the town of Milford, which is the part of New Haven County closest to NYC, and the town in New Haven County that sends the most commuters to New York City.

Where Milford residents commute to:

NYC: 2.4%
NYC suburbs: 1.5%
Fairfield County, CT: 39.5%
New Haven County, CT: 52.9%
Other CT: 3.1%
Other: 0.6%

Now Fairfield County isn't even part of the NYC MSA, so I don't even know how New Haven combines with NYC since it seems to lack the commuting numbers. Maybe Fairfield has sufficiently high intercommuting with both the New Haven and NYC MSAs to combine with either, but I didn't know MSAs could chain like that to form CSAs.

For what it's worth, the numbers do improve for the outer suburban counties. For example

Where Orange County, NY residents commute to:
Orange County: 65.3%
NYC: 10.5%
NYC suburbs: 20.8%
Other: 3.4% (over half is NYC satellite MSAs, rest is mostly more independent counties to the North).

To compare to an outer suburban area of Toronto

Bradford-Gwilimbury (part of Simcoe County) residents commute to
Simcoe County: 32.0%
Toronto: 15.4%
Toronto suburbs: 52.6%
Other: insignificant

Or Whitby (technically not a Toronto suburb according to Statscan, but only because Statscan doesn't allow merging of formerly separate metro areas)

Whitby (part of Durham Region*) residents commute to
Durham County: 56.3%
Toronto: 31.8%
Toronto suburbs: 10.8%
Other: 1.1%

Durham County is adjacent to Toronto, Simcoe County is not.

*equivalent to a county


----------



## Union Man

Jonesy55 said:


> I think using that area is too big for the London metro, in the outer parts people are much more likely to be commuting to Brighton, Portsmouth, Southampton, Reading, Oxford, Milton Keynes or Cambridge than into London. Margate, Ipswich or the Isle of Wight are not particularly connected economically to London either.
> 
> The EU LUZ definition, shown below as the middle boundary compared to Greater London as the smallest and London+SE+East as the biggest, gives a population of about 13.4m in an area of 3,440 square miles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say that's a more reasonable definition though it could probably be expanded a bit.


I would have to disagree. The Norwich line to London is pact every morning, even departing from Norwich people commute to work in London. Ipswich is even worse and getting a seat on a 10+ carriage train to London from 6-9am is sometimes near impossible during the weekday.


----------



## Phoenyxar

But the line has to be drawn somewhere. Every regular morning I'm part of the rush hour towards Brussels, thousands of people commuting to one place, yet the European LUZ-regulations doesn't include this part of the country to be part of the Brussels-LUZ. Even stranger so, my town doesn't even seem to be part of the Louvain-LUZ? 








I'm not entirely sure where the line is drawn (so what percentage is needed to be considered part of a LUZ) but just looking at the experience I have with those rush hours, I'd say those lines are quite high. It's a good thing really, since otherwise some entire countries could be considered to be their own LUZ and what'd be the point of that?

Somewhat strange that a predicting demographics-thread has slightly derailed to a general "where do we draw the metropolis-line"-discussion.

Edit: This map is way too large, some way to shrink it a little bit?


----------



## isaidso

London LUZ makes the most sense to me for an equivalent to a metro area.


----------



## Jonesy55

Union Man said:


> I would have to disagree. The Norwich line to London is pact every morning, even departing from Norwich people commute to work in London. Ipswich is even worse and getting a seat on a 10+ carriage train to London from 6-9am is sometimes near impossible during the weekday.


I'm sure some do, but the vast majority don't. When I worked in Birmingham there were people in my office commuting from Nottingham, Banbury, Cheltenham, one guy even came from Liverpool, and the trains from those places are packed each morning. 

But that doesn't make those places part of the Birmingham metro area as there are not enough people doing that. Many of the people on trains are going for business or other reasons just for the day rather than a daily commute and the majority of people don't go to work by train anyway.

According to the latest ONS survey 86.7% of workers living in Norwich work in Norwich itself another 12.3% work in other districts of Norfolk, that's 99% having their regular workplace in the county.

For Ipswich residents 66.7% worked in Ipswich, 23.4% work in other districts of Suffolk, 1.8% worked in Greater London with others working in parts of Cambridgeshire, Essex or Norfolk.

There's no way either gets up to the numbers needed for inclusion in the London metro, hardly surprising when the train journey from Norwich to London takes nearly 2 hours and an annual season ticket costs £7500!


----------



## Jonesy55

As another example take the district of Wokingham on the western edge of the LUZ.

According to the ONS survey data 41.1% of workers living there work in the district itself, 22.4% work in the City of Reading, 4.1% work in districts bordering Reading, 7.8% work in Greater London, 17.7% work in the outer districts of the London LUZ and 11% work elsewhere. Presumably it hasn't been included in the London LUZ because of the stronger commuting flows in the opposite direction to Reading.


----------



## Eric Offereins

isaidso said:


> London LUZ makes the most sense to me for an equivalent to a metro area.


I agree. It is slightly more than just the agglomeration or the built areas, more like the local region it is the centre of.


----------



## Jonesy55

The one thing that stands out as a bit strange from the LUZ definition is that it doesn't include London's second airport, Gatwick, which is in the Crawley district.


----------



## Metro007

The "problem" finding out the influence of big cities like London or NY is that these urban areas have some subcentre who are themslelves enough big to live, work and shop in it. So i can imagine some towns being part of the urban area and having a very low part of commuters who commute to the core city. If i take L.A. for example, the city of Long Beach is interely in the urban area but has 300-400k inhabitants. If a big part of the people only goes 10-15 time a year to L.A. (for example for exhibitions, concerts etc.) it's almost like if they would live outside the LUZ. So it's almost impossible to know where to put the border of the influence-area of a big city. That's why for me, the continuous urban area is interesting because it says something about the size and can be compared pretty easy with other urban areas.


----------



## TheMoses

What if, say, London abolishes the greenbelt and over the next 10 years or so fills it in with low density sprawl? Let's say it ends up being directly connected to an extra 2 million people. Would London's urban area have then grown by an extra 2 million people?

Or what if Central Park ran across Manhattan rather than up the length off it, and so bisected the island? Would Uptown Manhattan then be a separate urban area to midtown/downtown? If not, how big does a gap need to be to count? Also what is special about fields? Staten Island is separated from the rest of New York by water. But water doesn't count as a break in the urban area where fields do? Why? Because it is not feasible to fill in whereas fields can be? But equally a cliff wouldn't be feasible to fill in so would two towns, one at the base of a cliff and the other at the top, be part of the same urban area?


----------



## the spliff fairy

I would count parks as urban, and disregard small-ish waterways as barriers. San Francisco would be a good case, although the bay bisects it from Oakland, they're the same urban area essentially. Likewise with Liverpool and Birkenhead


----------



## Jonesy55

And golf courses.


----------



## Union Man

London population hits 8,416,535 (2013). ONS Annual Mid-year Population Estimate 2013.


----------



## Pals_RGB

Well Delhi's population touched 25 million this year.


----------



## isaidso

Pals_RGB said:


> Well Delhi's population touched 25 million this year.


If the city population hit 25 million, what is metro Delhi at? opcorn:


----------

