# The 10 biggest european cities?



## Insignia (Jan 10, 2006)

hoogbouw010 said:


> This thread was about density and not about (absolute) population size of cities.
> 
> My list of cities in Europe with high population density:
> - Paris
> ...


London has more residential flats than Paris & Berlin put together.


----------



## SGoico (Sep 5, 2005)

Paris 24,450 inhab./km² (source: wikipedia)
Athens 19,133 inhab./km² (source: wikipedia)
Barcelona 15,869 inhab./km² (source: wikipedia)
London 11,536 inhab./km² (source: demographia)
Moscow 8,537.2 inhab./km² (source: wikipedia)
Milan 6,988 inhab./ km² (source: wikipedia)
Madrid 5,198 inhab./km² (source: wikipedia)
Berlin 3,811 inhab./km² (source: wikipedia)
Rome 1,987 inhab./km² (source: wikipedia)
Istanbul 1,280 inhab./km² (source: demographia)


----------



## SGoico (Sep 5, 2005)

carlisle said:


> Whoever said Barcelona had Europe's highest density has a point, I'd forgotten about that, Barcelona is stupidly dense, probably more so than Paris.


Is stupidly dense simply because the city can't expand anymore:

Natural Park with mountains and so on (Parc de Collserola) on the West
Mediterranian on the East
7 or 8 more cities (at least) on the North and South


----------



## Insignia (Jan 10, 2006)

SGoico said:


> *Paris 24,450 inhab./km²* (source: wikipedia)
> Athens 19,133 inhab./km² (source: wikipedia)
> Barcelona 15,869 inhab./km² (source: wikipedia)
> London 11,536 inhab./km² (source: demographia)
> ...


That’s clearly impossible. The figures are either wrong or you are representing it wrong. The Paris City population is 2.2 Million Max.


----------



## DonQui (Jan 10, 2005)

Insignia said:


> That’s clearly impossible. The figures are either wrong or you are representing it wrong. The Paris City population is 2.2 Million Max.


Erm, Paris proper is only 100 km2, so his numbers are perfectly correct.


----------



## SGoico (Sep 5, 2005)

Insignia said:


> The Paris City population is 2.2 Million Max.


So what? You know what does density means?



Insignia said:


> That’s clearly impossible. The figures are either wrong or you are representing it wrong.


Please, do investigate yourself. As clearly states, source = Wikipedia


----------



## DonQui (Jan 10, 2005)

I think that the rankings would probably look something like this, although I am not sure.

1) London
2) Istanbul
3) Moscow
4) Paris
5) Milan
6) Madrid
7) Berlin
8) Barcelona
9) Naples
10) Rome

Since the thread is about biggest European cities (and I would presume metropolitan areas), I did not inclue polycentric regions such as parts of the Netherlands and Germany.


----------



## 909 (Oct 22, 2003)

Insignia said:


> _Paris 24,450 inhab./km² (source: wikipedia)
> 
> _That’s clearly impossible. The figures are either wrong or you are representing it wrong. The Paris City population is 2.2 Million Max.


The area of the Paris itself is 105,40 km² with an population of 2.142.800. So the average density is 20.330/km².
Excluding the outlying parks of Bois de Boulogne and Bois de Vincennes, the area of the city is 86.92 km². So the density of the build-up area is 24,650/km². 

May i ask you what's to clearly wrong with those figures?


----------



## Insignia (Jan 10, 2006)

SGoico said:


> So what? You know what does density means?


I know what Density means. I should know what it means. I am English. Yes.

Surely you must be crazy to believe a Small City Like Paris would have more than 20,000 Inhabitants in 1 Square Kilometer.



SGoico said:


> Please, do investigate yourself. As clearly states, source = Wikipedia


“Wikipedia” doesn’t mean the Information is right. I can alter information. Anybody can.

Show me official Density figures of Paris, France from a Reliable source like the City Council. ect.


----------



## Insignia (Jan 10, 2006)

909 said:


> The area of the Paris itself is 105,40 km² with an population of 2.142.800. So the average density is 20.330/km².
> Excluding the outlying parks of Bois de Boulogne and Bois de Vincennes, the area of the city is 86.92 km². So the density of the build-up area is 24,650/km².
> 
> May i ask you what's to clearly wrong with those figures?


I am not denying 20,000 Average Population.. but However I do not think All of Paris is that flooded with People. There will be some areas with High Population figures and some areas with Real Low Population Figures. Keyword=Average Population Density.


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

Yawn...


----------



## DonQui (Jan 10, 2005)

Insignia said:


> I am not denying 20,000 Average Population.. but However I do not think All of Paris is that flooded with People. There will be some areas with High Population figures and some areas with Real Low Population Figures. Keyword=Average Population Density.


I don't understand what you are having problems with.

Paris proper is only 100km2. In order to have a population of over 2 million, it BY DEFINITION must have population densities of 20.000 or more. Think of it this way, imagine if only a small inner part of London that is not the financial district(s) that was 100 km2 in area. I would bet that the population density for London proper would shoot up closer to Paris proper levels.


----------



## Insignia (Jan 10, 2006)

for example..

Paris Centre. 100,000 km²

Paris Border. 001,000 km²

Get my point?


On topic, London is populated more than Paris. In that matter London is more densely populated than Paris in the City Centre areas, and most Public Areas. Paris is overall more Densely populated than London.


----------



## DonQui (Jan 10, 2005)

Insignia said:


> for example..
> 
> Paris Centre. 100,000 km²
> 
> ...


Did not follow that at all.


----------



## 909 (Oct 22, 2003)

Insignia said:


> On topic, London is populated more than Paris. In that matter London is more densely populated than Paris in the City Centre areas, and most Public Areas. Paris is overall more Densely populated than London.


Uhm, i don't think so. Here are some interesting facts and figures:



> *Density*
> 
> *At the 1999 French census the population density in the city of Paris was 20,164 inh. per km² (52,225 inh. per sq. mile). Excluding the outlying parks of Bois de Boulogne and Bois de Vincennes, the density in the city was actually 24,448 inh. per km² (63,321 inh. per sq. mile). As a matter of comparison, the density in Manhattan at the 2000 US census was 25,846 inh. per km² (66,940 inh. per sq. mile), and the density in Inner London at the 2001 UK census was 8,663 inh. per km² (22,438 inh. per sq. mile).*
> 
> ...


----------



## Insignia (Jan 10, 2006)

909 said:


> Uhm, i don't think so. Here are some interesting facts and figures:


Ok. Cool. I was wrong there. The clear thing is, that London Metro Population is 18 Million.. Paris- 10 Million. London Urban Population - 12 Million. 909, Tell me the Paris Urban population. 
*
Edit: I mean 'SubUrban' population because the Metropolitan population would be the same. Silly me :sleepy:*


----------



## rocky (Apr 20, 2005)

paris urban is 10 , metro is 11,5


----------



## LLoydGeorge (Jan 14, 2006)

Insignia said:


> Ok. Cool. I was wrong there. The clear thing is, that London Metro Population is 18 Million.. Paris- 10 Million. London Urban Population - 12 Million. 909, Tell me the Paris Urban population.
> *
> Edit: I mean 'SubUrban' population because the Metropolitan population would be the same. Silly me :sleepy:*


London is 18m according to the UK method. However, Paris can't be only 10 million according to the UK method as well. I think that we're comparing apples to oranges. Does anyone know what Paris' metro population is based on the UK method? 15m? 17m?

Also, as the UK method seems to yield larger metros than the US method does, I'm curious what the populations of cities like Tokyo, NY, Sao Paulo, Shanghai, etc. are based upon the UK method. I would guess that Tokyo could be close to 40-45m.


----------



## Metropolitan (Sep 21, 2004)

Here's the list of Greater Paris municipalities which have a density above 10,000/km² (including Paris city proper's arrondissements) :

_1999 census figures._
 Paris 11th arrondissement	:	40 627
 Paris 10th arrondissement	:	31 008
 Paris 18th arrondissement	:	30 713
 Paris 20th arrondissement	:	30 594
 Paris 3rd arrondissement	:	29 272
 Paris 17th arrondissement	:	28 370
 Paris 15th arrondissement	:	26 576
 Paris 9th arrondissement	:	25 614
 Paris 19th arrondissement	:	25 439
 Paris 13th arrondissement	:	23 991
 Paris 14th arrondissement	:	23 554
 Le Pré-Saint-Gervais	:	23 396
 Paris 5th arrondissement	:	23 169
 Vincennes	:	22 825
 Levallois-Perret	:	22 697
 Saint-Mandé	:	21 410
 Paris 6th arrondissement	:	20 893
 Paris 2nd arrondissement	:	19 783
 Paris 4th arrondissement	:	19 172
 Montrouge	:	18 229
 Boulogne-Billancourt	:	17 239
 Courbevoie	:	16 713
 Clichy	:	16 292
 Vanves	:	16 291
 Les Lilas	:	16 052
 Neuilly-sur-Seine	:	16 045
 Asnières-sur-Seine	:	15 734
 Le Kremlin-Bicêtre	:	15 405
 Charenton-le-Pont	:	14 369
 Malakoff	:	14 204
 Paris 7th arrondissement	:	13 933
 Gentilly	:	13 659
 La Garenne-Colombes	:	13 521
 Puteaux	:	12 784
 Bagnolet	:	12 650
 Bois-Colombes	:	12 440
 Issy-les-Moulineaux	:	12 388
 Aubervilliers	:	10 961
 Suresnes	:	10 477
 Montreuil	:	10 165
 Épinay-sur-Seine	:	10 155
 Paris 8th arrondissement	:	10 132
 Nogent-sur-Marne	:	10 068


And here's the list of Greater London bouroughs which have a density above 10,000/km² (including Inner London) :

_2004 estimate figures._
Kensington and Chelsea	:	14 374
Islington	:	12 121
Hackney	:	10 932
Hammersmith and Fulham	:	10 622
Tower Hamlets	:	10 450
City of Westminster	:	10 336
Lambeth	:	10 013


----------



## LLoydGeorge (Jan 14, 2006)

So, is Paris' metro larger than London's? Paris always seemed larger to me than London.


----------



## pricemazda (Feb 14, 2004)

8 hrs a day commute!!!!! 

Coth in all these threads about City populations you will never concede anything even though a dozen nor so people who are better qualified on demographics than you list lots of evidence to prove you wrong. 

When they do prove you wrong you call them Russophobes. You have been warned before about this, and refusal to accept the obivous is also considered trolling. 

I think the figures used by the Greater London Authority should be considered 'Official' figures and those who are not qualified to dispute them, should refrain from doing so.


----------



## coth (Oct 16, 2003)

I'll tell you secrete. There is no such term - Metropolitan Area in Russia. There is no even Urban Area term. That's why there is no official figures. We have cities, city-towns, towns, provinces, territories, autonomous districts, autonomous province and republics plus several more types of towns.


----------



## coth (Oct 16, 2003)

@pricemazda
No. This statement was made up by nick refering to Eurostars.


----------



## Metropolitan (Sep 21, 2004)

SuomiPoika said:


> So using the US method the London metro is 18 million, but what´s the NYC metro if you use the UK method (the method you get the 12-14 million figure for London with)?


As I've understood it, the main difference between the US method and most European methods is that in the case of the US, analysis are based on counties, when in the case of Europe, analysis are based on municipalities. As such US figures are a lot more approximative as they are based on larger entities.


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

counties


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

Metropolitan said:


> I'm sure he did, however, I've well-explained the mistake Manuel has probably made in his analysis. Many cities of South East and East of England regions would be considered as enough big to have their proper metro areas, and the only way to fully encompass them into London metro area would be in the case they are totally surrounded by London metro area. That would mean that 40% of people living in the countryside behind Colchester, Reading, or Portsmouth would work in the Greater London, and meanwhile, less than 40% of those countrysiders wouldn't work in Colchester Reading or Portsmouth (otherwise those towns would be considered as multipolarized towns). This is of course always possible, but that would be deeply irrational.


a) How many minutes did it take you to debunk the many months of hard research done by Manuel.
b) A metropolitan area does not have to include the city proper of London to be connected to London. It is based on the core counties and cross commuting in both directions. So you don't need 40% of the population working in Greater London.

The CMSA and MSA model is clearly identified in that document. If you can't be bothered to read the document, how can you discredit it?



Metropolitan said:


> Basically, metropolitan regions group together all metropolitan areas which are touching each others. There are of course very strong chances that the metro area of Folkestone, Hastings, Brighton or Oxford are all touching the metro area of London. As such, it's almost obvious they are all part of the same metropolitan region, but I'm a lot more sceptic with the idea they are all fully encompassed into London's metro area.


Is this some international standard you have come across, because I am not aware of any such standards that yet cross multiple nations.



Metropolitan said:


> The urban area is not so hard to calculate. It's simply about the contiguous built-up area. I simply cannot see how this could reach 12 million people in the case of London. The Green belt clearly prevents this.


Actually it is. There are so many variables between different country's on what constitutes the limits of their urban area's.
* Some country's define the limit of 200m of non urban space as the border between urbanity and countryside. Some country's define this as 300m, or 500m or 1km. That difference can make a great difference, especially in Europe which may have a green belt between urban area's. If the limit is 200m for example, a major urban continuation 201m behind a greenbelt will not be counted in one country, but if another country has also a continuation of urban area 201m past their greenbelt, and their cutoff was 300m it would be included.
* Some country's define the cutoff as open countryside. Others allow rivers or waterways to be included, others don't. Some allow industrial area's to be included, others are more restrictive. Some allow parks and managed nature area's to be included, others don't. You can see the major differences this could create.
* Some country's define their area not by a cutoff, but by a population density level, such as 500 people per sq mile (or kilometer which makes a big difference), others by 1000people/km² etc etc.

There are so many variables and they all make enormous differences.



Metropolitan said:


> Metropolitan regions are polycentric, Metropolitan areas are monocentric. Such a difference is clearly obvious isn't it ?


Absolutely not true. There are so many cities that are poly centric, in fact most have multiple centers, although these may be in the direct urban area, or over the metropolitan area.

*Minneapolis/St. Paul has two distinctive and almost equal sized centers very close to each other in the direct urban area. Is this a metropolitan region then?
*Frankfurt has other centers within it's urban area, although nowhere near as dominant as the core city, they are still independent city centers belonging to separate councils. Eshborn and Offenbach come to mind. Are these only part of the metropolitan region?
*Sydney is the same with other centers such as Parramatta, Penrith, Chatswood, North Sydney etc, all under different councils and distinct city centers (some with larger skyscraper skylines than most European cities) and yet within the direct urban area.

There is no such thing as an international agreement that a metropolitan region defines in all cases, in all cities around the world, a grouping of metropolitan area's.



Metropolitan said:


> People working at the Greater London Authorities aren't all professional urbanists. They've linked you to a work which isn't a study but simply a presentation of London only mentionning fastly London _as being part of_ a metropolitan region of 18 million people.


Now you are discrediting the demographic department of the GLA. You love to discredit people don't you, without hesitation, and without research. 

The people responsible for calculating London's metropolitan area are in fact qualified for the task, and are working with other such people across Europe to define an EU standard. As if they would hire their cleaning lady to come up with the figures.

Again, read the document I posted which explains the reasons behind the GLA's metropolitan definitions.



Metropolitan said:


> Is a city part of its metro area ? no, a city has a metro area which is defined as people commuting from satellite towns to that city's urban area.


Of cause a city is part of it's metro area. What else would be part of, a fish?



Metropolitan said:


> By the way Justme, if in typing "London metro area" on google I would see 20 websites all giving a figure around 18 million people, I wouldn't questionned this, but this is hardly the case. So please don't talk as if that 18 million figure, which is the one of a polycentric metropolitan region, would be the one of a monocentric metropolitan area.


Please look at the references of the metropolitan area's and see how many are from government sources. None, except the 18million definition.

The reason there are so many is so simple, I am surprised you didn't work this out yourself.

Metropolitan area's are a new concept to much of Europe. And Britain is one of the last country's in the world to start adopting them. Prior to the GLA government publishing their figure it was up to any Tom, Dick and Harry to improvise their own. The world hates a vacuum, and without official information, people and organizations would come up with their own figures. However, how many of these organizations actually studied the commuting percentages of all the area's surrounding London to provide accurate figures? None I would guess.

Look how many thousands of hits you get in Google for doing a search on London's metropolitan area population at 7.2 or 7.3million. There are an enormous amount of sites that claim this. But surely even you can agree that they must be wrong - the GLA is not a metropolitan area as it is a political static boundary not devised by commuting.


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

Metropolitan said:


> As I've understood it, the main difference between the US method and most European methods is that in the case of the US, analysis are based on countries, when in the case of Europe, analysis are based on municipalities. As such US figures are a lot more approximative as they are based on larger entities.


However, Europe also can use NUS3 or NUS4 regions to define metropolitan area's, which is how the London figure is created and how as WP13 describes, the work to define a European standard would be created.

The NUS3 and NUS4 datasets across Europe can closely be compared to U.S. counties and make a comparable analysis possible.


----------



## GM (Feb 29, 2004)

I have a question : Are cities like Brighton or Southampton included in the 18 millions figure for the London's Metropolitan area ?


----------



## Arpels (Aug 9, 2004)

Justme said:


> :lol: Manuel spent many months, possibly a year creating his paper for university basing on extensive research and official statisics. How many minutes did you just spend discrediting him without any hesitation or truth.


o is Manuel? :uh:


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

GM said:


> I have a question : Are cities like Brighton or Southampton included in the 18 millions figure for the London's Metropolitan area ?


Brighton is, Southampton isn't.

Brighton fits in based on the CMSA criteria, it would not however, be included on a purely MSA figure.


----------



## Küsel (Sep 16, 2004)

I was basing my diploma work on London Metro on this map:









But it is 10 years ago, maybe it changed. Then I made a coparisment of other urban areas in Europe, but it's also been 10 years since...:








The number for the metropolitan areas were:
London: 20'100'000 (but this included more parts of the Southeast, the urban area was 14'400'000), Randstad 4'200'000, Rhein-Main 4'220'000, Zürich 1'450'000 (nowadays 1.75mio), Basel 1'050'000


----------



## Manuel (Sep 11, 2002)

Metropolitan said:


> I'm sure he did, however, I've well-explained the mistake Manuel has probably made in his analysis. Many cities of South East and East of England regions would be considered as enough big to have their proper metro areas, and the only way to fully encompass them into London metro area would be in the case they are totally surrounded by London metro area. That would mean that 40% of people living in the countryside behind Colchester, Reading, or Portsmouth would work in the Greater London, and meanwhile, less than 40% of those countrysiders wouldn't work in Colchester Reading or Portsmouth (otherwise those towns would be considered as multipolarized towns). This is of course always possible, but that would be deeply irrational.


>> Oh, I see, *you have not understood the INSEE calculation process*. It is made of iterations meaning that the 40% of working population in work does not necessarely work in London but also in the municipalities that are themselves sending 40% of the workforce in London and the areas aggregated at the previous iteration. A bit more complicated than what you explain to us, oh great master.

Remember that only 240 000 workers commute to the Ile de France region everyday. Would you mind considering that this figure is 700 000 for London. The interpenetration between London and its hinterland is much more intense.

I’m even fully convinced that for some metropolis, we should drop the “aire urbaine / metro area concept” for the mega city region promoted by one of the greatest urbanist, Peter Hall. He happens to be british so you may find it less credible I guess But be reassured, his work of mega city regions is sponsored by the EU and many other european teams are working with him.

Randstad, Rhur, the Greater South East and to a lesser extent a restricted Bassin Parisien would provide a good spatial framework to understand how metropolis’ function on a everyday basis. I’ve given a link to a forthcoming book on this topic already. I’m sure it will make a big impact. 

Defining metropolis’ is not just a funny game you know. All these works that take a lot of time are to serve eventually theoretical and political purposes.


----------



## LLoydGeorge (Jan 14, 2006)

Is there an actual list of the populations of various metro populations which is based on the UK methodology? If so, can someone post it?


----------



## Küsel (Sep 16, 2004)

That would be difficult I guess, because every country does its statistics and methodology. If the Brits don't have the statistical numbers from other countries, it's impossible. I see that already in Switzerland: every municipality has its own method of pop counting, the national statistics use again another one. Like that for example only my city (city proper) Zurich differs in population between 333'000 and 368'000 for the same year! Like that the metro-figueres (as defined by the national statistics) differ between 1.7 and 1.85mio, depends which numbers you take as a base. Then it depends on the methodology - taken the US-method the metro (Greater Zurich Area) has 3.2mio. Milano (metro NOT defined in Italy) differs from 3.5 to 7.2mio.

Commuter-maps and statistics are very hard if not impossible to get in a lot of countries - and then you want the most ACTUAL ones... I wish there would be a proper listing like that, but I think it's impossible. Not even citypopulation.de is accurate in that sense.


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

Kuesel said:


> That would be difficult I guess, because every country does its statistics and methodology. If the Brits don't have the statistical numbers from other countries, it's impossible. I see that already in Switzerland: every municipality has its own method of pop counting, the national statistics use again another one. Like that for example only my city (city proper) Zurich differs in population between 333'000 and 368'000 for the same year! Like that the metro-figueres (as defined by the national statistics) differ between 1.7 and 1.85mio, depends which numbers you take as a base. Then it depends on the methodology - taken the US-method the metro (Greater Zurich Area) has 3.2mio. Milano (metro NOT defined in Italy) differs from 3.5 to 7.2mio.
> 
> Commuter-maps and statistics are very hard if not impossible to get in a lot of countries - and then you want the most ACTUAL ones... I wish there would be a proper listing like that, but I think it's impossible. Not even citypopulation.de is accurate in that sense.


Exactly. This is why there is now a plan to standardize between EU country's as outlined in this plan: http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/econ...on_standard.pdf

The idea is to work together with various European country's to make an initial shortlist of 27 major cities using a single standard based on NUTS3 zones (as comparable to the U.S. county system) to define metropolitan area's, using a similar formula to the American MSA, CMSA so that direct and accurate comparisons can be made.

If it is successful, it could allow a blanket standard across the EU.


----------



## Küsel (Sep 16, 2004)

I know and it's a good plan - the problem is that the countries give the newst number - or is it the cities? Or the states? And here lies the problem I was talking about:

- There are countries that make a census every 5 or 10 years nationwide. Some states or municipalities base afterwards their modifications on it.
- But a lot of cities make their own burocratic census: counted once the people themselves and where they go to work and every times someone moves in or out of the city is counted minus or plus. 
- Again others include refugees or long-termed tourists in the polls
- Our cities are small in size and the country dense populated with a good railroad and street network. That leads to a lot of "Wochenaufenthalter" - people that study or work in a big city for 5 days a week and stay "home" on the weekend (mostly the alps) where they are counted as "inhabitants" although the actually "live" in the big cities.

And that is the problem - maybe you can define a common methodology but it doesn't mean you get the correct base data  And to make a census for a whole continent is technically and politically not possible...


----------



## Metropolitan (Sep 21, 2004)

Manuel said:


> >> Oh, I see, *you have not understood the INSEE calculation process*. It is made of iterations meaning that the 40% of working population in work does not necessarely work in London but also in the municipalities that are themselves sending 40% of the workforce in London and the areas aggregated at the previous iteration. A bit more complicated than what you explain to us, oh great master.
> 
> Remember that only 240 000 workers commute to the Ile de France region everyday. Would you mind considering that this figure is 700 000 for London. The interpenetration between London and its hinterland is much more intense.


Calm down, there's really no reason to get angry. The purpose is to get an accurate picture isn't it ? Then I believe different concepts shouldn't be mixed up.

About the 240,000 workers which commute to Ile-de-France (11.5 million people), I believe it's not that low compared to the 700,000 workers which commute to the Greater London (7.5 million people). We all agree that the urban area exceeds the Greater London, when the Paris urban area is completely included into Ile-de-France region. So that doesn't really prove anything.



> I’m even fully convinced that for some metropolis, we should drop the “aire urbaine / metro area concept” for the mega city region promoted by one of the greatest urbanist, Peter Hall. He happens to be british so you may find it less credible I guess But be reassured, his work of mega city regions is sponsored by the EU and many other european teams are working with him.
> 
> Randstad, Rhur, the Greater South East and to a lesser extent a restricted Bassin Parisien would provide a good spatial framework to understand how metropolis’ function on a everyday basis. I’ve given a link to a forthcoming book on this topic already. I’m sure it will make a big impact.
> 
> Defining metropolis’ is not just a funny game you know. All these works that take a lot of time are to serve eventually theoretical and political purposes.


Probably we should drop metropolitan area for the concept of metropolitan region, I'm sure that's a great idea. However, I also agree with you that defining metropolis is indeed not just a funny game, and that's why I'm not really supporting people mixing up metropolitan regions and metropolitan areas.

Those concepts remain clearly different. It's not because you believe that metropolitan regions are more significant that it's a good reason to consider they are the same as metropolitan areas.

Metropolitan regions are about several metropolitan areas which are linked between each others through commuting traffic. They are polycentric and can't be compared with metropolitan areas which are by definition monocentric.


----------



## Klas (May 16, 2005)

*@suomipoika*



SuomiPoika said:


> I have visited several internet sites and got different information so i would like to get the facts right.Discuss. Thanks
> 
> Here´s a list i made that i think is somehow correct ( city - urban area - metro area)
> 
> ...


Berlin has 3,34 mill. inhabitans in city and around 4 mill. in urban area ;athens city population are 700000 inhabitans ---


----------



## Metropolitan (Sep 21, 2004)

Justme said:


> Exactly. This is why there is now a plan to standardize between EU country's as outlined in this plan: http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/econ...on_standard.pdf
> 
> The idea is to work together with various European country's to make an initial shortlist of 27 major cities using a single standard based on NUTS3 zones (as comparable to the U.S. county system) to define metropolitan area's, using a similar formula to the American MSA, CMSA so that direct and accurate comparisons can be made.
> 
> If it is successful, it could allow a blanket standard across the EU.


Well, don't you believe it would be more interesting for the US to base their stats in municipalities than for the EU to base their stats in pseudo-counties ?

The purpose is to get the most accurate statistical picture right ? Well, then, using the smallest entities available should be the best way to do so. Actually, that's one of the few advantage I find in having such small municipalities in France : It brings more accurate statistics.


----------



## Manuel (Sep 11, 2002)

Metropolitan said:


> Calm down, there's really no reason to get angry. The purpose is to get an accurate picture isn't it ? Then I believe different concepts shouldn't be mixed up.
> 
> About the 240,000 workers which commute to Ile-de-France (11.5 million people), I believe it's not that low compared to the 700,000 workers which commute to the Greater London (7.5 million people). We all agree that the urban area exceeds the Greater London, when the Paris urban area is completely included into Ile-de-France region. So that doesn't really prove anything.
> 
> ...



What is annoying is that all these criteria have already been discussed. Do you think you're the first to explain them? You're fairly new to this forum compared to say, Justme or myself.

It's high time to move on and accept figures given as you don't add anything new to what we've discussed in the past.

Let me know something first. Do you understand the calculation process ? Prove me the opposite and I give you an ounce of credibility.


----------



## rocky (Apr 20, 2005)

well manuel you should provide links to your study or something because the 18ml calculation process seems to count 40% but sounds not comparable to the insee calculation process.

for me, and for most of the people outheire, it seems exagerated.

and the greater london is way smaller than the Ile de france region, explaining the difference in commuters 240000 to 700000

argumentation currently showed by justme and manuel seems nul and weak (for example minneapolis saint paul) . plus it shows some childish arrogance."ive been here longer i know what i say"
. come on. "he has studied this 1 year" : so ? i have studied things 1 year and dont pretend that nobody can have an opinion about it. its about the quality not the time spent researching.

show some facts or shut up. :bash:


----------



## Metropolitan (Sep 21, 2004)

I hadn't read it earlier, but London wikipedia article seems rather reasonable on that story :



Wikipedia said:


> The population of the urban area of London at the 2001 census, as calculated by the Office for National Statistics, was 8,278,251 inhabitants. (External reference: [3]). London urban area is the third-largest in Europe, behind Moscow (11.7 million inhabitants in 2000) and Paris (9.6 million inhabitants in 1999).
> 
> Unlike many other countries, the UK does not provide national metropolitan area population figures based on commuter percentages and economic influence. This is left up to each individual city to define. This has created much confusion when comparing London's true metropolitan area region with others around the world. It is helped even less by confusion of the term "Greater London" with the political entity of the City of London, which is often confused with the metropolitan area.
> 
> ...


Metropolitan areas and Metropolitan regions are clearly two very different concepts. Maybe I arrived at Skyscrapercity after you, but it seems I'm not the only one thinking this way.


----------



## Troopchina (Oct 7, 2005)

SHiRO said:


> You are way off in your last six. Where are Milan and Barcelona?
> Athens is not bigger than Madrid and what is Kyiv doing there?
> 
> It's more like this:
> ...


I am really not that interested in statistical numbers as those are very inaccurate when talking about cities. I still see f.e. Berlin or Madrid bigger than Milan though statistical data may show different.


----------



## Bitxofo (Feb 3, 2005)

Barcelona city: 1,600,000 inhab.
Great Barcelona: 5,000,000 inhab. (Barcelona Metropolitan Region)
:wink2:


----------



## Insignia (Jan 10, 2006)

I dont like Metro Populations people are using for other cities. And yet they dont include the Berlin Metro Population.

Berlin City Population - 3,391,407. That is more than the Paris City Population. Berlin is bigger than Paris (2,144,700), Barcelona (1,593,075) and Madrid (3,155,359).


----------



## Küsel (Sep 16, 2004)

No wonder - Berlin is one of the "greenest" cities in Europe with maybe about 5 or 6 times the size of Paris. It's metro on the other hand is small, apart from Potsdam - it's quite isolated as Hamburg or Hannover and not included in a bigger conglomerates of cities as Frankfurt or Ruhr.


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

Bikkel said:


> Metro is an outdated concept with people changing jobs, holding several jobs, have partners with jobs in other cities. The consumer pattern I find much more reliable to determine what's the center of an urban area.


Get real. Most people still have only one job on only one location. Even if it will become more commoplace to have several jobs or several locations to go to (or just stay home), this can be fitted in the concept of metro area. In those cases the main workplace or the office can simply act as location which is counted 



> But why are we talking cities and use all sorts of vague and differing definitions of the reach of cities? The Randstad includes farming areas and farming isn't often done in cities.


Hey what a coincidence. A metro area also includes farming areas.
After all these threads you STILL don't have a clue what a metro area is.




> Randstad and Deltametropolis don't exist. These are concepts made up by people looking for attention and jobs of course. Amsterdam and Rotterdam are rival cities, far from 'one'.


Who ever claimed Amsterdam and Rotterdam all of a sudden became one city?
Noone...So maybe you should stay out of the debate if you are unable to comprehend the concept.



Do I have to say I agree with Justme and Manuel on this one?
And Metropolitan, I appreciate the alternative viewpoint and by all means critisize the methods used. But also accept the comparability of official figures. Your basic premise that metro area and metro region are two different things doesn't hold any water.

I wish a time would come on SSC that some things were just taken for granted and that we can have discussions like this one on a higher level.
It's no use debating about the ocean if there are constantely people claiming water isn't wet.


----------



## www.sercan.de (Aug 10, 2003)

what is "city" "urban area" and "metro area"?


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

City is basically a line on a map.
In other words the administrative boundary of a city. Of course with some cities this is very narrowly defined and with other it is way overbounded.

Urban area is basically the build up area. Question is wether to count open spaces such as parks and how much area do you allow the build area to "skip over". Does a city not continue over a mountain range, gren belt or river?
Different methods give different results. Some work with population density other with the physical environment.

Metro area is based on commuter patterns. A central city or multiple cities and towns connected with suburbs and countryside through the number of people commuting.

If someone wants to expand on this please do...


----------



## LLoydGeorge (Jan 14, 2006)

Why are London and Moscow the only cities in which the populations of their metro areas are disputed?


----------



## Insignia (Jan 10, 2006)

LLoydGeorge said:


> Why are London and Moscow the only cities in which the populations of their metro areas are disputed?


The Metro is also for Paris and that is why it gets a 10, 12 Million+ Population figure.

On the other hand, Berlin. Officially is the bigger "City" than Paris and most of the European Cities. However Berlin doesn’t have a Large Metro area and this explains why its smaller than Paris but in reality it is much more bigger.


----------



## Metropolitan (Sep 21, 2004)

www.sercan.de said:


> what is "city" "urban area" and "metro area"?


An *Urban area* is indeed determined according to the contiguous built-up criteria. It determines the urbanized area around a city, counting the sprawl directly connected to the city center. It's a morpholigical definition of the city.

A *Metro area* add to the urban area the satellite towns and village in which a large part of inhabitants are working into that specific urban area. It's an economical definition of the city.

A *city* can be anything, it could be a municipality, an urban area or a metro area, it depends on what people are talking about.

If you want a more precise definition than that one, this post explains it in all technical details.


----------



## Metropolitan (Sep 21, 2004)

SHiRO said:


> Your basic premise that metro area and metro region are two different things doesn't hold any water.


A metro area defines the satellite towns and villages commuting in _one specific_ urban area. A metro area is necessarily "monocentric". We talk about the metro area of a city.

A metropolitan region defines a whole region in which commuters are moving into _multiple_ urban areas. A metropolitan region is "polycentric". We talk about the metropolitan region in which a city is part of.

In order to make you understand, here is an example with Northern France.










As you can see, there are several metro areas in that map which are each encircled with a grey line. In red are defined urban areas, in orange are defined the periurban belt which is included into the metropolitan area of each city.

Lille, Armentières, Bailleul, Merville, Hazebrouck, Douai-Lens, Valenciennes, Béthunes, Arras, etc... They all have their specific metropolitan areas being defined.

However, all those cities are belonging to a single metropolitan region, which is called in the Insee as "Nord-Pas de Calais". Lille is part of that metropolitan region, but the fact it's the largest city around doesn't mean that the "Nord-Pas de Calais" metropolitan region is Lille metro area.

Hope it's been clearer this way.


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

Nope, there are many metro areas which are policentric. You got your definitions all messed up.


----------



## Metropolitan (Sep 21, 2004)

SHiRO said:


> Nope, there are many metro areas which are policentric. You got your definitions all messed up.


Nope, they are always centered on one single urban area.

Let's take the case of the Rhein-Ruhr metropolitan area. It encompasses several cities (Dortmund, Essen, Duisbourg, etc...). However, all those cities are making only one urban area. That's the reason why they share the same metropolitan area.

An urban area can be encompassed into the metro area of a larger city only in the case its proper metro area is totally surrounded by the metro area of that larger city. Check this post for further explanation.


----------



## Butcher (Dec 13, 2004)

A question? Why is there so much argument on this?

Most of us agree that the metro area is based on commuter patters (18 million figure) and that the urban area is based on buildup (12-13 million figure). End of Story!


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

rocky said:


> for me, and for most of the people outheire, it seems exagerated.


That is probably because you don't understand the concept of a metropolitan area. If it doesn't seem exaggerated to those who study and professionally work in the field, but it does to you, then one doesn't have to think too hard where the problem lies.



rocky said:


> argumentation currently showed by justme and manuel seems nul and weak (for example minneapolis saint paul) . plus it shows some childish arrogance."ive been here longer i know what i say"
> . come on. "he has studied this 1 year" : so ? i have studied things 1 year and dont pretend that nobody can have an opinion about it. its about the quality not the time spent researching.


If someone who didn't study anything your qualified for, but then claimed after a few minutes looking into the situation that they were right and you were wrong, I am sure you would argue back.

I am sure you also wouldn't consider your defensive attitude childish.

If you don't understand something that's fine. The best thing about this forum is learning.



rocky said:


> show some facts or shut up. :bash:


Facts have been shown in official publications from government departments. One has clearly shown the exact formula of how the London metropolitan area was devised, using the equivalent of the American CMSA using NUTS3 zones. What more do you need?

Now that we showed official documents placing the London metropolitan area at 18million, and the formula used to create it, you are welcome to show official British government documents showing the London metropolitan area as something more along your lines of thought.

As you put it yourself, and I will simply quote your words.


rocky said:


> show some facts or shut up. :bash:


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

Metropolitan said:


> I hadn't read it earlier, but London wikipedia article seems rather reasonable on that story :
> 
> Metropolitan areas and Metropolitan regions are clearly two very different concepts. Maybe I arrived at Skyscrapercity after you, but it seems I'm not the only one thinking this way.


:lol: I can't believe you have posted that Wikipedia reference.

The person who wrote much of that was actually a SSC forumer who has been banned for his anti London and British rhetoric (amongst other trolling activities)

His account was also closed on wikipedia a while back.

Before the London article in wikipedia was prunned, he was known for his insistant degration of the article, and changed it almost on a daily basis.


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

Insignia said:


> I dont like Metro Populations people are using for other cities. And yet they dont include the Berlin Metro Population.
> 
> Berlin City Population - 3,391,407. That is more than the Paris City Population. Berlin is bigger than Paris (2,144,700), Barcelona (1,593,075) and Madrid (3,155,359).



Yes, let's all go by city populations. Sydney is a small town of 145,000 people, and Perth has the greatest skyline in the world for a city of 7,800.

Seriously though. When thinking about a city's size, it's best to think in all three contexts.

City population (useful for political comparisons), Urban population (great for environmental) and metro population (best of economic).

Urban Area and Metro are also good for lifestyle, working and leisure options.

Looking at only one is just part of the story.


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

Butcher said:


> A question? Why is there so much argument on this?
> 
> Most of us agree that the metro area is based on commuter patters (18 million figure) and that the urban area is based on buildup (12-13 million figure). End of Story!


I have no idea. It's not like these people have extensively researched the population and commuting patterns, and found discrepancies. 

It smacks purely of politics.


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

Butcher said:


> A question? Why is there so much argument on this?


Some people like to argue that water isn't wet.
Real handy in a debate about the ocean....:|


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

coth said:


> according to census of 2000 Istanbul is 8 803 468 within city proper and 11 500 000 in urban area, according to citypopulation.de.
> 
> as for metropolitan area - it doesn't matter. we talking about cities.


Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I think the arguments for metro area figures offering a more "accurate" figure on determining city populations in many cases are pretty hard to disagree with.


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

Tubeman said:


> Come on guys lets not make this into a City vs City bickerfest


This isn't about city vs city.
This is -yet again- about people coming here to deny official numbers and methods and in some cases even denying entire worldwide accepted concepts (that of metro areas).

I don't have much hope for this site, when the atmosphere is such that we seem to attract immature kids instead of professionals in the field like we ought to be...:no:


----------



## coth (Oct 16, 2003)

SHiRO said:


> Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I think the arguments for metro area figures offering a more "accurate" figure on determining city populations in many cases are pretty hard to disagree with.


city, shiro, is urban area. it is synonyms, talking about phisical meaning, not in administrative. in Russian it is even using one word - gorod (city) and adjective from gorod - gorodskoy is urban. it is has nothing to do with phantomal connections with millions of theories. you know, every theory is possible to prove, if you want to prove it (cell phones are bad for health/cell phones are not bad for health, symmetry badly affects on mind/symmetry have very good affects on mind or that moscow metro is 21mln, or that london metro is 18mln). but urban area is not theory, but term for phisically built up area.


----------



## coth (Oct 16, 2003)

SHiRO said:


> This isn't about city vs city.
> This is -yet again- about people coming here to deny official numbers and methods and in some cases even denying entire worldwide accepted concepts (that of metro areas).
> 
> I don't have much hope for this site, when the atmosphere is such that we seem to attract immature kids instead of professionals in the field like we ought to be...:no:


It's ok if you state figures for London. but it's not ok, when, yourself, you start city vs city topic saying that London is biggest of all, when you don't know official theoretical population of moscow metro.

I have seen figure for Moscow metro only once. It wasn't official, it was stated by l'express - 18mln.


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

city and urban area are definately not synonyms.


----------



## coth (Oct 16, 2003)

SHiRO said:


> city and urban area are definately not synonyms.


they do. and i told youm unlike in english - it is one word in Russian and many other East Slavic languges, i suppose.


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

The language we use here is not Russian but English (in case you haven't noticed).


----------



## coth (Oct 16, 2003)

You could use any language. I don't care. The fact is there.

as for english

city
a large and densely populated urban area.

WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University


city
very large urban area

Encarta Dictonary


----------



## snot (May 12, 2004)

'city' can be only the inner core of the city, but most people would call city, the whole urban area, inclusive the suburbs, but it's so relative, cause the more the suburbs are 'outher'suburbs the less people tend to see it as part of the city . 
Some suburbs with a strong local econmy or a strong history are also called cities and not just a part of the central city. A lot of North-Eastern American or European cities have old cities in there urban area's.
It's clear that the more polycentric or/and sprawling the urban area is, the less the whole area is seen as 'a city' by most people.

So for most people, 'a city' is a polycentric urban area, with or without the most distant and sprawling outskirts.


----------



## coth (Oct 16, 2003)

snot, you talking from administrative point of view. in this point city also could be big 80thous sq km province like chongqing.


----------



## PhillyPhilly90 (Aug 12, 2005)

Interestin' argument...not to get off the subject but I think New York has a bigger urban population than any European city...true?? Los Angeles, too...maybe.


----------



## snot (May 12, 2004)

coth said:


> snot, you talking from administrative point of view. in this point city also could be big 80thous sq km province like chongqing.


No, I agree with you that the urban area is mostly called 'a city', but the issue and language used by people is far more complex than just drawing the line city=urban area.

The administrative point of view is another story,...


----------



## coth (Oct 16, 2003)

PhillyPhilly90 said:


> Interestin' argument...not to get off the subject but I think New York has a bigger urban population than any European city...true?? Los Angeles, too...maybe.


they do, of course.


----------



## Insignia (Jan 10, 2006)

Let me see.

London - 18 Million.

Paris - 12 Million Max.

Moscow - 15 Million Max.

Istanbul - 15 Million Max.


London is biggest of them all.


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

Metropolitan said:


> The metropolitan region which is mentionned by the GLA is based on multiple different urban areas. Not strictly in the one of London. By the way, London authority has never claimed it as being a metropolitan area... so I fail to understand where you want to go in calling it this way.


Yes, The London model is based on multiple urban area's surrounding the central urban core. 

Of cause it is. This is the standard model for a metropolitan area. Around the world, you will find countless metropolitan area's following this model. It is normal.



Metropolitan said:


> Listen to me, I don't know the specific case of Sydney, but the only thing which is clear is that Rouen, Le Havre and Caen aren't part of Paris metropolitan area simply because there are commuters getting in multiple urban areas all over the river Seine. That makes simply no sense at all.


That is a fair statement. If Rouen, Le Havre and Caen don't have significant cross commuting with Paris and the core urban region then no, it is not part of that city's metropolitan area. 

Of cause not. Metropolitan Area's are not statistical regions pulled out of a cereal box but mathematical calculations based on commuter percentages.

Every country has it's own way to calculate MA's, and sometimes they can be quite complicated. However, there are two very simple principles:

* If an area meets the requirements to be included into a metropolitan area, it is.
* If it does not, it isn't.

This does mean that many external urban area's are added to a city's metropolitan area. It also means that many area's are not.



Metropolitan said:


> This defines the _metropolitan region_ of the Grand Bassin Parisien, as defined in the INSEE statistics. But that doesn't consist into the direct zone of influence of Paris as defined by people commuting into Paris urban area.


You have answered your own question then. Obviously then, the INSEE definition as you describe called "metropolitan region" is very different to the "metropolitan region" of London, as London's was based on commuter percentages as described in WP13.

They may have the same name but mean completely different things. This is common across different country's.

For example. Greater London, and Greater Sydney have the same name. But Greater London is a political entity with static borders and Greater Sydney is a loose definition that generally applies to all of the urban area surrounding Sydney and grows every year. Very different.

Paris Metro and Hobart metro have the same name. But the Paris metro runs high frequency mainly underground heavy rail trains whilst the Hobart metro is a bus company. Very different.

Paris Metropolitan Region, London Metropolitan Region. The Paris metropolitan region is one which links together surrounding metro's with Paris, whilst the London Metropolitan Region is one similar to the CMSA as described in WP13 that is based on commuter percentages. Very different.



Metropolitan said:


> I'm all open-minded to designate a city, but I fail to see why we would encompass in its population figures people who don't even put one single foot in its urban area during a full year.


That's fair enough. I have no problem with this, as I already said my personal definition of a city is much like yours: i.e. the Urban Area, although I tend to also include the near metro, including some urban area's that maybe separate but are very close.

People who live in Lithgow, 143km from Sydney _do not_ call themselves Sydneysiders. They are however part of Sydney's MA. The same with people who live at the tip of Long Island. They do not call themselves New Yorkers, but they are part of the CMSA of New York. etc etc.

I also think most people have this definition as well in regards to what constitutes a city, although it is certainly culturally based - as said before, Germans tend to think only in city proper terms, anything outside the political boundary of the city is _not_ considered by them as part of the city. Offenbach is 15minutes from downtown Frankfurt, it is served not only by suburban train, but also by tram's direct to Frankfurt. It is part of the direct Urban Area surrounding Frankfurt, but to German's, a person from Offenbach is an Offenbacher. Even when describing where they are from to people on the otherside of the world, they would say "I'm from Offenbach, Germany" - any flickering of the eyelids on the non-nationals they are talking to, and confusion to where this place Offenbach actually is, would not make them budge - they are simply from Offenbach, end of story.

However, American's and Australian's tend to think in terms of Metropolitan Area's first, although I do suspect most of them confuse the UA with the MA. 

A person from the outskirts of Sydney's UA, such as Penrith, would tell the world, they live in Sydney. Despite the fact that they live in a seperate city. Fair enough statement (although, as mentioned, if outside the direct urban area, they will probably not, even if being within Sydney's MA)

so...

In general, if a German were to list the 10 largest cities in Germany, they would list them by city proper.
In general, if an American was to list the 10 largest cities in the U.S. they would list them by MA.
Is it possible that in France, people would list the top 10 cities by Urban Area?

Metropolitan Area's do exist. I don't know why you have problems with this, unless someone says "London is the biggest city in Europe"

Using the German way of thinking, London would be the largest city. Using the American way of thinking, London would also. But using the French way, Paris would. Paris does have (using official national statistics and methods) a larger UA than London - Although there may be differences on how UA's are defined between the two country's.

However, London has the larger Metropolitan Area than Paris. If one is to compare two city's, they should compare like for like. MA's with MA's, Urban Area's with Urban Area's and CP's with CP's.

And London's definition of a metropolitan region is akin to the American CMSA, not the French definition.


----------



## coth (Oct 16, 2003)

@Insignia

can you back up your figure with source? no? then don't claim it...

i'll remind once again. Moscow metro theoretically is close to 21mln.


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

Opps, double post.


----------



## DonQui (Jan 10, 2005)

coth said:


> Moscow metro theoretically is close to 21mln.


When? In 3006? :crazy:


----------



## Cyril (Sep 11, 2002)

Lol-esque thread. 
Very interesting at first sight but it looks like a battle field where everyone wants to make their capital city stronger and more powerful than the other. Why don't you just make a table with cities, urban areas and metro areas population figures for each (large European) city according to the seemingly very different and numerous theories/criteria (the UK method/the US method/The French method/...etc) that are mentioned here ? This would avoid fights and nonsense and would give quite a good idea of each "city" population without having to favor a method more than the other.


----------



## LLoydGeorge (Jan 14, 2006)

It seems that the English method is based on regions. Specifically, within a region, what percentage of the population is necessary to deem an area to be within the regional/metro area according to the UK method?

Also, are there any lists that show regional/metro populations of various cities as per the UK method?


----------



## coth (Oct 16, 2003)

DonQui said:


> When? In 3006? :crazy:


Right now. Of registered population. Based on commuter belt.


----------



## www.sercan.de (Aug 10, 2003)

is it so importan to have the bigest city?
Actually i am not proud of Istanbuls ~12 mil.
6-max.8 mil would be better


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

Cyril said:


> Lol-esque thread.
> Very interesting at first sight but it looks like a battle field where everyone wants to make their capital city stronger and more powerful than the other. Why don't you just make a table with cities, urban areas and metro areas population figures for each (large European) city according to the seemingly very different and numerous theories/criteria (the UK method/the US method/The French method/...etc) that are mentioned here ? This would avoid fights and nonsense and would give quite a good idea of each "city" population without having to favor a method more than the other.




Neither me, Justme or Manuel are from London, not even from the UK.
We are not interested in "propping up our capital cities". We are interested in meaningfull conversation which are FACT based.
Unfortunately that seems impossible on this site.


----------



## Riton (Feb 8, 2006)

Hi,

I just discovered this great web forum and came across this thread. The discussion here about how to define London's metropolitan area is very interesting. Here in the US, as most of you know, there are two definitions of metropolitan areas: the strict metropolitan statistical area (MSA) and the wider combined statistical area (CSA). 

MSAs are defined as follows:
(1) Define urban areas -- these are areas based on census block groups that have a population density of at least 1000 per sq. mile (~400 per sq. km). Urban areas that have a total population of 50000 or more are identified and a metropolitan statistical area is associated with it.
(2) Identify central counties -- All counties that have at least 50% of their population within the urban area are considered central counties.
(3) Identify outlying counties -- These are counties that are contiguous with the central counties and have at least 25% of their working population employed in one of the central counties.

With this stricter definition, New York would have a population of 18.6 million and Los Angeles would have 12.8 million (2003 census estimate). So in this definition, Metropolitan is correct in saying that there is only one urban area associated with a metropolitan area (i.e. it is by definition monocentric).

On the other hand, the wider CSAs are defined as follows:
(1) Identify adjacent MSAs. 
(2) Determine total of percentage of working population of smaller MSA employed in larger MSA (any county including outlying) and percentage of employment of smaller MSA accounted for by residents of larger MSA. If this total is 25 or more, the smaller MSA is "combined" with the larger MSA. 

Under this definition, New York would have a population of 21.6 million and Los Angeles would have 17.3 million (2003 census estimate). CSAs are, by definition, polycentric since they are composed of multiple MSAs (and multiple urban areas).

So, my take is that using MSAs, London would probably be in the range of 12-13 million, and using CSAs, London would be in the 17-18 million range. Now, the appropriateness of using US definitions to the generally denser European cities is another question.


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

Hi Riton, welcome to this site and thank you for the information you bring to the table.





Riton said:


> With this stricter definition, New York would have a population of 18.6 million and Los Angeles would have 12.8 million (2003 census estimate). So in this definition, Metropolitan is correct in saying that there is only one urban area associated with a metropolitan area (i.e. it is by definition monocentric).


No, even a MSA is not necessarily monocentric. 
Think of Dallas-ft Worth, San Fransisco-Oakland, LA-Long Beach, Minneapolis-St Paul etc etc etc





> So, my take is that using MSAs, London would probably be in the range of 12-13 million, and using CSAs, London would be in the 17-18 million range. Now, the appropriateness of using US definitions to the generally denser European cities is another question.


Except that using American definitions London's urban area alone is 12-13 million. Surely it's metro extends further beyond the urban area like with ALL other cities in the world...


----------



## Riton (Feb 8, 2006)

SHiRO said:


> No, even a MSA is not necessarily monocentric.
> Think of Dallas-ft Worth, San Fransisco-Oakland, LA-Long Beach, Minneapolis-St Paul etc etc etc


But each one of these is defined by the US Census Bureau as a single urban area. These may have two or more cities in them but they are all in the same urban area. That is what I meant by monocentric -- one MSA corresponds to exactly one urban area.



> Except that using American definitions London's urban area alone is 12-13 million. Surely it's metro extends further beyond the urban area like with ALL other cities in the world...


I am not familiar with the urban area of London but most other often-cited lists of metropolitan areas (world gazetteer.com, citypopulation.de, demographia.com) put London in the 12-13 million range. But you are probably correct since the criteria for US urban areas are not very strict (which is appropriate for countries that have large spaces like the US and Australia). It even allows for gaps of up to 0.5 miles (800 m) as long as there is a connecting arterial highway.


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

Riton said:


> But each one of these is defined by the US Census Bureau as a single urban area. These may have two or more cities in them but they are all in the same urban area. That is what I meant by monocentric -- one MSA corresponds to exactly one urban area.


If Oakland is in the same urban area as San Fransisco then so is San Jose. Why is that a seperate MSA then? 
Metropolitan was not right no matter how you spin it. Metro areas are not necessarily monocentric even not when you mean MSA when you say metro area.





> I am not familiar with the urban area of London but most other often-cited lists of metropolitan areas (world gazetteer.com, citypopulation.de, demographia.com) put London in the 12-13 million range.


Clearly all sources that cite London as anything else then 18 million as a CSA equivalent for metro area is wrong. A MSA equivalent figure is never been researched (to my knowledge) but it is fairly obvious it is higher then 12-13 million (more like 14-17 million).





> But you are probably correct since the criteria for US urban areas are not very strict (which is appropriate for countries that have large spaces like the US and Australia). It even allows for gaps of up to 0.5 miles (800 m) as long as there is a connecting arterial highway.


To my knowledge the US Census definition of Urban Area has to do with densities of census tracts, not gaps and connections.


----------



## VansTripp (Sep 29, 2004)

SHiRO said:


> If Oakland is in the same urban area as San Fransisco then so is San Jose. Why is that a seperate MSA then?
> Metropolitan was not right no matter how you spin it. Metro areas are not necessarily monocentric even not when you mean MSA when you say metro area.
> 
> 
> ...


WOW SHIRO 

Most forumers that said all San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose is all combined as called Bay Area as MSA but I don't think so about separate MSA last 15 years about SF Metro, Oakland and San Jose isn't included.


----------



## Riton (Feb 8, 2006)

SHiRO said:


> If Oakland is in the same urban area as San Fransisco then so is San Jose. Why is that a seperate MSA then?


Because they are counted by the US Census Bureau as two separate urban areas. There are two places where the two urban areas touch at lower density suburban areas. One is a 2-mile line across Palo Alto here (the upper left is San Franciso-Oakland and the lower right is San Jose); and the other is a 0.7-mile segment of the boundary of Milpitas and Fremont here. The connection points have densities that are below the criteria for merging urban areas (see link below).

I'm sorry about being a pain here but I just wanted to clarify how the US Census defines these.



> To my knowledge the US Census definition of Urban Area has to do with densities of census tracts, not gaps and connections.


Yes, that is the way the initial urban area cores are identified, but there are several iterations after that. One of them is the inclusion of non-contiguous high density areas that can be reached by a "hop" defined as a land connection along a major road of no more than 0.5 miles. See Urban area criteria (US Census 2000) for more details.


----------



## kind (Jan 11, 2004)

SHiRO said:


> To my knowledge the US Census definition of Urban Area has to do with densities of census tracts, not gaps and connections.


Noncontiguous qualifying areas (i.e. census blocks with a population density of at least 500 ppsm) are added to what the Census Bureau defines as the initial core of the urbanized area, if the shortest road connection between them does not exceed 0.5 miles. ("Hop")

Other qualifying areas are included in the urbanized area if the shortest road connection between those areas and the initial core does not exceed 2.5 miles. ("Jump")


----------



## DrasQue (Jan 10, 2006)

www.sercan.de said:


> is it so importan to have the bigest city?
> Actually i am not proud of Istanbuls ~12 mil.
> 6-max.8 mil would be better


That is definitely right.I dont like to see ppl everywhere.Wish there were 4 million ppl in Istanbul  :banana2:


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

Thanks Riton and kind.


----------



## bileduct (Sep 11, 2002)

Justme said:


> Actually, the Bay area is not a continuous urban area using French or British criteria. The U.S. uses a very different definition of Urban Area than those France or Britain. A classic example of this was demographia's definition of London's Urban Area based on 1992 population figures which resulted in 12.2million, compared to the British National Statistics of 8.6million - this was calculated using the U.S. standard.





SHiRO said:


> Except that using American definitions London's urban area alone is 12-13 million. Surely it's metro extends further beyond the urban area like with ALL other cities in the world...


Treating Demographia's method of measuring London's urban area as 12m as being the same as the official US method is highly misleading though. Although they both use the same headline 1000 residents per sq mile threshold, Demographia constructs its 'urban area' out of contiguous _local authorities_ (which are typically 10-20 miles across, sometimes even bigger) while the US census constructs them out of contiguous _census block groups_ (typically a few hundred yards across). This means that Demographia's 'urban area' can jump across areas of open countryside spanning tens of miles, while the official US criteria will generally decide an urban area has ended when it comes across more than a few hundred yards of unpopulated countryside except in very specific circumstances.

Demographia do this averaging out over very large areas deliberately, as they are trying to suggest that London is surrounded by sprawling low-density suburbs in the same way that some US cities are, when in fact it is surrounded by separate medium-sized, medium-density commuter towns set in green-belt-protected open countryside. Demographia don't make things up, but they do have an agenda and often spin things in a certain way to further that agenda.

It's quite hard to tell how the European-defined urban area of London would compare to a US-defined one, not least because the US one is very complicated. Some rural gaps that were bigger than the 200m EU threshold wouldn't count as gaps by US standards, which would tend to make the US-defined one bigger, but some thin fingers of urbanity connecting urban areas in the EU-defined one might not count as connections by US standards as a EU urban connection can be literally a single building wide, while a US connection generally has to involve a whole census block group being above a certain density. This second factor would tend to make a US-defined urban area smaller.

Whether it was bigger or smaller though, London's US-defined urban area would be unlikely to be hugely different in population to a European-defined one as the edges of the London conurbation are pretty well-defined by the green belt - there's relatively little room for ambiguity. It could be a bit bigger, but it wouldn't be anything like 12m.


----------



## snot (May 12, 2004)

bileduct said:


> Some rural gaps that were bigger than the 200m EU threshold wouldn't count as gaps by US standards, which would tend to make the US-defined one bigger, but some thin fingers of urbanity connecting urban areas in the EU-defined one might not count as connections by US standards as a EU urban connection can be literally a single building wide, while a US connection generally has to involve a whole census block group being above a certain density. This second factor would tend to make a US-defined urban area smaller.


Interesting, on the satelite images @Riton posted its clear that on the two sides of the SF bay the urban area's of SF-Oakland and San Jose are touching each other. So in Europe we would call this 1 single urban area. In fact, the only non-urban area's are the mounainous outbacks.


----------



## Kommandant Mark (Oct 8, 2003)

Belgrade, Serbia & Montenegro: city 1.7 million (comparable to Warsaw or Vienna), metro 2.5 million, some say over 3 million.
Where does that put us?


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

Hello Riton, and welcome to the forum. @SHiRO, actually, Riton is correct here as far as MSA's go. They are centered around a central urban core, known as the core counties. These are known as CBSA's (Core Based Statistical Area's)

But you are also correct that they may be polycentric in their own right. Also, technically, because they are based on the county borders, it allows for non urban area population to also be added to the CBSA - in other words, the Central _Urban_ area may include rural and undeveloped land. The CBSA may be based on a single city, or may have multiple cities and centers within.

CBSA's are subdivided into something called "Metropolitan Divisions" (not to be confused with metropolitan area's). Each division contains a distinct integrated city plus surrounds. NY's CBSA for instance contains 8 such Metropolitan Divisions.

Outlying Counties can then be attached to the CBSA (core counties) if the commuting percentage permits. Using the U.S. Standard, this is 25% of the working population in either the outlying county crossing into the CBSA, or the otherway around - i.e. it is bi-directional. This is what makes the MSA (Metropolitan Statistical Area) - Outlying counties joining the central core urban counties.

CMSA's are as Riton pointed out joining other Metropolitan Area's to an MSA. Hence the term "Combined Metropolitan Statistical Area"

However, they are not as in the definition Metropolitan points out. The CMSA is still a calculated region based on commuting. For another MSA to join the primary MSA, there still must be a bi-directional level of commuting between them. In the case of U.S. systems. This must be between 15% to 25% (minimum).

MSA's can only join one other MSA. If they have links to two or more MSA's, it is the most dominant MSA that they will join.

For London, the GLA used NUTS3 zones instead of Counties. An LUZ (Larger Urban Zone) is used instead of the CBSA but is the direct equivalent, and other NUT3 zones are added using a similar percentage requirement to the U.S. MSA and CMSA.

London's 18million is not an MSA. It is a CMSA, equivalent to that which describes the large cities in the U.S. (There metropolitan area's are usually represented by the CMSA's)

However, it is not a "Metropolitan Region" as described by Metropolitan which is a definition used in France and has a unique criteria.

In this respect. London's CMSA can not be directly compared to the aire urbaine system used by the INSEE. This is more closely related to the MSA of the U.S. system. As Manuel's extensive research has revealed, the INSEE equivalent for London would be approx. 17million.

From a brief, but in no way extensive investigation into the exact calculation, I would estimate the MSA of London to be between 16-17million. However, that is just an estimation on my behalf, and unlike the extensive research done by Manuel for the INSEE figure, and similar research by the GLA for the 18million CMSA equivalent figure, mine should only be taken at face value.


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

bileduct said:


> Treating Demographia's method of measuring London's urban area as 12m as being the same as the official US method is highly misleading though. Although they both use the same headline 1000 residents per sq mile threshold, Demographia constructs its 'urban area' out of contiguous _local authorities_ (which are typically 10-20 miles across, sometimes even bigger) while the US census constructs them out of contiguous _census block groups_ (typically a few hundred yards across). This means that Demographia's 'urban area' can jump across areas of open countryside spanning tens of miles, while the official US criteria will generally decide an urban area has ended when it comes across more than a few hundred yards of unpopulated countryside except in very specific circumstances.
> 
> Demographia do this averaging out over very large areas deliberately, as they are trying to suggest that London is surrounded by sprawling low-density suburbs in the same way that some US cities are, when in fact it is surrounded by separate medium-sized, medium-density commuter towns set in green-belt-protected open countryside. Demographia don't make things up, but they do have an agenda and often spin things in a certain way to further that agenda.
> 
> ...


You have some very valid points. But in the context of defining the LUZ of London, it would use NUTS3 regions instead of counties of the US. CBSA.

The metropolitan area's of the U.S. are not made up of the direct urban area, but the CBSA (see my above post for description). The equivilent LUZ for London is quite extensive


----------



## Fallout (Sep 11, 2002)

Why don't you people just work together to make some list of metro/urban areas in Europe with all your knowledge, but waste time on making 200 posts on the same thing, without any final conclusion.


----------



## LLoydGeorge (Jan 14, 2006)

Justme said:


> ...CBSA's are subdivided into something called "Metropolitan Divisions" (not to be confused with metropolitan area's). Each division contains a distinct integrated city plus surrounds. NY's CBSA for instance contains 8 such Metropolitan Divisions....
> 
> 
> London's 18million is not an MSA. It is a CMSA, equivalent to that which describes the large cities in the U.S. (There metropolitan area's are usually represented by the CMSA's)


With the way the London metro/region/CMSA is defined by the UK standard, US cities like NY would be much larger than they are generally listed. NY is usually listed at 21m or so, but would have over 30m pursuant to the UK method. People from all parts of New Jersey commute to NY, and yet the whole state is not included in NY's 21m. Many people commute to NYC from Pennsylvania (e.g., Philadelphia is 1 hour and 6 mins by train).

The same holds true with LA which is one continuous area with San Diego, and many people in Orange County (part of the LA metro) commute to SD and LA.

I wonder how big Tokyo would be applying the UK methodology. I guess that it may have 40m people.


----------



## Küsel (Sep 16, 2004)

But Madrid Province had 5,964,143, the metro 5,6mio inhabitants in 2005... 6.2mio is the economical area - by same definition as Zurich has 3.2, London 18 and Milano 7.3mio afaik...


----------



## Bikkel (Jun 8, 2005)

Ah, the usual misconception that a city equals an urban area ..
Look, Randstad is cowtown, not a CITY. C'm on. You're blind.

1-4: Istanbul, London, Moscow, Paris (alphabetically)
different league:
Milan, Madrid, Berlin, Naples, Athens, Brussels, Hamburg, Barcelona, München, Warzawa, St Petrograd, Kiyv, Lisboa

The agglomeration of the Ruhr is the odd one out since those cities and towns are becoming a cluster with centralised functions. 

Yet the word city implies a center, not built-up areas ... Anyway, the word metropolitan originally is a religious administration, so it ought to be Canterbury rather than London  Metropolitan has different meanings in various languages now, so don't think you can just compare surveys from different countries. While the hidden purpose to national surveys is to push the country's main city ...


----------



## pricemazda (Feb 14, 2004)

But what about the West Midlands which is made up of 3 or 4 cities? Is that one urban area or seperate cities?


----------



## Küsel (Sep 16, 2004)

If you count Ruhr, then you have also to count Radstad and the Swiss Midlands as well as Englands North with Liverpool-Manchester centers. They are the same kind of agglomerations and (I don't know about the latter) planned urban areas as London Metro for many decades!


----------



## Metropolitan (Sep 21, 2004)

Kuesel said:


> But Madrid Province had 5,964,143, the metro 5,6mio inhabitants in 2005... 6.2mio is the economical area - by same definition as Zurich has 3.2, London 18 and Milano 7.3mio afaik...


No your facts are wrong. The 18 million figure for London and the 7.3 million figure for Milan aren't about metropolitan areas (MSA) but about CSA or Metropolitan regions. It's about various contiguous metro areas which are grouped together.

London metro area is about 12 million people. There's no official figure but that remains a decent approximation.


----------



## snot (May 12, 2004)

Riton said:


> You're right about Belgium. I didn't check it when I posted the list above but its largest contiguous urban area has a population (2000) of 5,800,000. This includes Antwerp, Gent, Bruxelles, and Schaerbeek.
> .


The 3 cities triangle Brussels/Gent /Antwerp is not an urban area but only sort of combined metro area. You could compare it with Randstad but it's less dense than Randstad.
Personally I think we should make a difference between typical monocentric metro area's like London, Paris, Barcelona, Madrid, Moskou, Berlin,... And Rhein/Ruhr, Randstad or central Belgium. Those are more urban networks than metro area's.


----------



## Bitxofo (Feb 3, 2005)

willo said:


> Madrid metro area is more like 6-6,2 million inhab.


No, you are wrong!
:nono:
That is Madrid economical area, but not metropolitan Madrid.


----------



## Insignia (Jan 10, 2006)

Metropolitan said:


> London metro area is about 12 million people. There's no official figure but that remains a decent approximation.


Greater London population is round about 12 Million... thats greater London ONLY (London Suburbs). Londons Metro population is 18 Million.


----------



## coth (Oct 16, 2003)

^ afaik 7,1mln according to lastest census.


----------



## Temp User (Feb 12, 2006)

Insignia said:


> Greater London population is round about 12 Million... thats greater London ONLY (London Suburbs). Londons Metro population is 18 Million.


Greater London is around 7 million. London Urban Area is around 8 million. London Urban Area (ignoring green belt) is around 12 million. London Metropolitan Area is around 18 million.


----------



## Temp User (Feb 12, 2006)

pricemazda said:


> But what about the West Midlands which is made up of 3 or 4 cities? Is that one urban area or seperate cities?


The West Midlands Urban Area, by the same statistics, comes in at about 3.5 million.


----------



## kebabmonster (Jun 29, 2004)

Lies, Damn Lies, you know the rest

Liverpool and Manchester can, arguably, merge as one. No way on God's green earth is this one city, socially, politically, economically or legislatively. Liverpool/Manchester can not be defined as a single, large European city.

same could be said of the Ruhr and the Randstad. Lots have cities have grown into oneanother, but they are not one of the same. 

Not like the way New York and London have a hinterland and suburbs attached to them but not under their political influence.


----------



## Cyril (Sep 11, 2002)

Temp User said:


> Greater London is around 7 million. London Urban Area is around 8 million. London Urban Area (ignoring green belt) is around 12 million. London Metropolitan Area is around 18 million.



Yes that's it at last! [sighs...sighs..sigh..]. End of the story.


----------



## DrasQue (Jan 10, 2006)

Bikkel said:


> Ah, the usual misconception that a city equals an urban area ..
> Look, Randstad is cowtown, not a CITY. C'm on. You're blind.
> 
> 1-4: Istanbul, London, Moscow, Paris (alphabetically)
> ...



definitely right! :righton:


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

Temp User said:


> Greater London is around 7 million. London Urban Area is around 8 million. London Urban Area (ignoring green belt) is around 12 million. London Metropolitan Area is around 18 million.


Correct.........


----------



## rocky (Apr 20, 2005)

correct...only if you are a mod in ssc.com


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

Oh shut up.

Right, I've had enough of this bollocks.


----------

