# Greater London is not just the urban center



## Butcher (Dec 13, 2004)

Most Londoners agree that the greater london metro has 18 million people, while the city proper has approximately 7.5 million people and is also the 32 boroughs.


----------



## I'mBack (Jan 15, 2005)

Butcher said:


> Most Londoners agree that the greater london metro has 18 million people, while the city proper has approximately 7.5 million people and is also the 32 boroughs.


Sorry, but I dont agreee: most londoners dont actually know ( = "they dont care", as the most of any inhabitants of any other city in the world!) how many inhabitants there are in London; for sure few people will say 18 million figure, I mean, all the major sources (internet, school books, ....) quote a figure between 8 and 11 millions of inhabitants.


----------



## Canary Wharf (Sep 13, 2002)

Nick in Atlanta said:


> Now you can see why us non-English are a little confused about England's governmental boundaries. In the US, and I'm not saying we have a better system, every state has counties (except Louisiana, which has Parishes.) Each state has a capital city where the governor and state legislature meet. Every county has a county seat, which is a city where the county management meets. Every county is clearly noted on almost any map or atlas you can find on the US.
> 
> Most maps of England are very sketchy when it comes to showing the exact borders of the counties. I know Kent is to the southeast of Greater London, but I have yet to see a map that shows its exact boundaries. As far as counties like Norfolk, Suffolk, Sussex, etc, I have a basic idea of their locations, but I've never seen a map that shows county boundary lines. Are there county boundary lines? Does each county have an administrative seat in one of its cities? Who is in charge of managing the police department in Norfolk county, for example, and where are they located?


Greater London has a different structure of local government than the rest of England, with 32 London Boroughs and the City of London forming Greater London, which is both a county and a region. It is the only region in England to have a proper regional government with a Mayor and an Assembly, though this is seen as a city government not a county or regional government (hence why the leader is called the London Mayor and the seat is City Hall).

In the rest of England the country is divided into 8 regions (Greater London is the 9th) which are used for minor purposes, basically for statistics, European Parliament elections and town/transport planning. The country is then divided into smaller units which are the counties, which come in various forms (traditional, ceremonial, metropolitan, administrative) but are what most English (outside London) would say when someone asks "what part of the country are you from?" and yes of course they have boundaries - the county boundaries in many parts of the country haven't changed in centuries. When you drive from one county to another there is usually a sign.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceremonial_counties_of_England - the counties in the form which most people are used to (use this set of counties when talking normally!) Each has a "county town", such as my county town of Shropshire - Shrewsbury.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_counties_of_England - the counties historically (still used for familly history research, etc) _Ye Olde Englande_ sort of thing for you Yanks.. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_counties_of_England - modern day administrative counties (which fit together to form Ceremonial counties - such as Devon, Torbay and Plymouth forming the larger Ceremonial county of "Devon")

Below county level there are districts, though some counties have only one district (such as Herefordshire, Isle of Wight, Rutland) and these are known as *Unitary Authorities*. Counties which are made up of more than one district are known as the *Traditional Shire Counties* (such as Worcestershire). *Metropolitan Counties* are the ones made up of the cities and metropolitan boroughs of a large connurbation, such as the West Midlands or Greater Manchester.

Districts can be called a whole host of things - boroughs, royal boroughs, cities, metropolitan boroughs, metropolitan districts, districts, rural districts... they all are roughly the same thing (just some can have different ceremonial and titular privaleges).


----------



## nick_taylor (Mar 7, 2003)

Nick in Atlanta said:


> Now you can see why us non-English are a little confused about England's governmental boundaries. In the US, and I'm not saying we have a better system, every state has counties (except Louisiana, which has Parishes.) Each state has a capital city where the governor and state legislature meet. Every county has a county seat, which is a city where the county management meets. Every county is clearly noted on almost any map or atlas you can find on the US.
> 
> Most maps of England are very sketchy when it comes to showing the exact borders of the counties. I know Kent is to the southeast of Greater London, but I have yet to see a map that shows its exact boundaries. As far as counties like Norfolk, Suffolk, Sussex, etc, I have a basic idea of their locations, but I've never seen a map that shows county boundary lines. Are there county boundary lines? Does each county have an administrative seat in one of its cities? Who is in charge of managing the police department in Norfolk county, for example, and where are they located?


I think the easiest way to look at it, is to imagine England as a US state. Within that state is the capital (London) where the governor (Prime Minister) and state legislature (House of Commons + House of Lords in Parliament) meet. Every country within the UK has a county seat (in the UK each county has an administrative headquarters, eg for Hertfordshire county, Hertford is the administrative headquarters aka County Town - it can be the biggest town or just historically or geographically important - where all the discussions of that county are taken). On top of counties, counties are split up into districts (Hertfordshire has 10 districts - similar to London Boroughs), I live in East Hertfordshire District and the admin centre for this district is in Bishop's Stortford where local councillors meet up (they all congregate in Hertfordshire which is the 'capital' of Hertfordshire) to talk about the 130,000 people living in East Hertfordshire. Below this are local parishes where local councillors who meet up in Bishop's Stortford consult with locals to bring their plight to light at district or county meetings. Some might see it as added red tape, but its important that the people remain in touch with the powers that be that decide the future of the county.

The pyramid of power is something like this:

NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
COUNTY COUNCILS
DISTRICT COUNCILS
PARISH COUNCILS


Now where do Members of Parliament (MP's) come from you may be enquiring! Well another layer TOTALLY SEPERATE from the district wards of a county and district councillors, is the constituency. Each consistency (there are 646 in the UK) is made up depending upon demographics. Areas which for example have lost populations tend to see their constituencies enlarge to bring in more population. Areas of growing population might have their constituencies divided to allow a more equal 'spread of power' - hence the importance of the census in the UK.


The following is an administrative map (very large map) since 1998 of England & Wales which follows historical lines. Note though that large cities (Unitary Authorities) have their own administraive heads seperate from their counties. So for example Portsmouth is a city which is in the county of Portsmouth....it has representatives on Hampshire County Council, but also has another: Portsmouth City Council which focuses specifically on issues to do with the City of Portsmouth.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a6/BlankMap-EnglandAdministrativeCounties.png


I think the confusion comes when people look at the administrative counties map and see far more lines than on the ceremonial map (which doesn't seperate Portsmouth from Hampshire, even though both are semi-seperate). The boundaries do change, but this is usually only the case for cities. London as an example used to me made up of mostly the county of Middlesex (some people even still refer to their location as being in Middlesex - the Royal Mail still recognise it), some of Middlesex was also divided up to other neighbouring counties like Hertfordshire and Surrey. The reason? Greater control over an urban area which decades ago was rapidly growing (London at the time had well over 8mn people) and borders and definitions of governance had to be realigned to ensure greater equality.






I'mBack said:


> Sorry, but I dont agreee: most londoners dont actually know ( = "they dont care", as the most of any inhabitants of any other city in the world!) how many inhabitants there are in London; for sure few people will say 18 million figure, I mean, all the major sources (internet, school books, ....) quote a figure between 8 and 11 millions of inhabitants.


Well I for one won't be using the internet and school books as credible authoritative sources over the UK Government and the Greater London Authority which state that London has a metropolitan area of 18mn!


----------



## Canary Wharf (Sep 13, 2002)

Where I live the pyramid goes like this:

State: United Kingdom
Nation: England
Region: West Midlands _not to be confused with the West Midlands county!!_
County: Shropshire (Ceremonial county, traditional shire county)
District: Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough
Parish: None - my town (Shrewsbury) is "unparished"

My British Parliament Constituency is also Shrewsbury and Atcham and has the same boundaries than the Borough, which is handy.

As you can see, it's rather confusing when you get down to the nitty gritty, but just think "England - Counties - Districts"...


----------



## Canary Wharf (Sep 13, 2002)

The ULTIMATE confusion occurs with places like Bristol, Berkshire and the City of London.

Bristol is a City, a Unitary Authority (and therefore an Administrative County), a Ceremonial County and traditionally is on the border with Gloucestershire and Somerset (the River Avon being the ancient border)!!!

Berkshire is a Ceremonial County, and an Administrative County BUT has no County Council and is made up of districts which are really Unitary Authorities but are not Administrative Counties because Berkshire is still one (even though it sholudn't be one).

The City of London is in the Administrative County/Region of Greater London, but is a Ceremonial County itself (normally Ceremonial Counties are made up of Administrative Counties, but the City warps this). Despite being only a square mile it still has it's own police force and due to its commercial nature it is the only place in the UK where businesses vote in local elections along with residents (not that the City has many residents).

:runaway: 

Just to confuse the matter, of course.


----------



## Canary Wharf (Sep 13, 2002)

Oh and don't get us started on how our police, healthcare, fire services, education, etc are all administered. They all require individual layers of their own!!


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

The basic point that's being lost here is that London is a much smaller city than NY. It has half the population density of NY, and it has only 7m people in an area that includes suburbs in Kent (like my friend's town -- Chislehurst). As I said, no one suggests that London is any less better because of its size disadvantage. In 30 years, Mumbai and Shanghai may be clearly bigger than NY -- but they won't be better.


----------



## Canary Wharf (Sep 13, 2002)

But Mike, you're not getting the jyst of the argument here. London, the settlement, is not the same thing as Greater London! So what if bits of it are in Kent? England has many strange quirks, just look at how a bit of Manchester city centre is in the City of Salford!!! London is bigger than the Greater London figure of 7.3m - look at the map on page one of this thread which shows the urban extent of the settlement. According to your argument the city of London has a population of 8'000 as that is the population of the City of London. Things work differently here in England - things are not what they seem!


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

Canary Wharf said:


> But Mike, you're not getting the jyst of the argument here. London, the settlement, is not the same thing as Greater London! So what if bits of it are in Kent? England has many strange quirks, just look at how a bit of Manchester city centre is in the City of Salford!!! London is bigger than the Greater London figure of 7.3m - look at the map on page one of this thread which shows the urban extent of the settlement. According to your argument the city of London has a population of 8'000 as that is the population of the City of London. Things work differently here in England - things are not what they seem!


You're misconstruing what I'm saying. I know that the London metro is more than just Greater London. My point is simply that NY is much larger, and it's evidenced by, among other things, that it has twice the population density. I don't know of anyone on this board who has lived in both cities for several years and could claim similar insight. My perceptions, moreover, are bourne out by the facts (like population density).

That being said, I'm not trying to turn this into a NY versus London pissing match. As I've said repeatedly, Tokyo is bigger than NY and London and superior to neither.


----------



## Canary Wharf (Sep 13, 2002)

New York is bigger than London, yes, but London has a bigger population than 7.3m... it's more like 14m. Tokyo - well it boggles the mind.


----------



## Nick in Atlanta (Nov 5, 2003)

@Canary Wharf and nick-taylor: Thank you very much for your very thorough answers to my questions!! It's clear that both of you spent significant time answering my questions. It's a great example of how much knowledge and desire to explain there is with some forumers on SSC!


----------



## Sitback (Nov 1, 2004)

Greater London is bigger in physical size then New York. And Greater London is the exact same equivalent to New York ok? These suburbs in Kent, Essex etc (romford) according to address are only stated to be in Kent, Middlesex etc etc because they are outside the W NW N NE E SE S SW postcode regions and like someone said as the city grew in history these areas became part of Greater London but kept their original addresses. I mean I live in Hendon right? NW London, Zone 3. Postcode NW4 but I could drive up to Harrow and I'm now in Middlesex (according to address). However the drive from Hendon to Harrow is all one continuos drive through the urbanity of a city, There is no break in the concrete and steel. It's all Greater London city end of story. I think the best way to judge London and everything in it is all the areas that include the 0207, 0208 regional phone codes.

And yes New York's 5 boroughs of 8 Million is smaller in physical size then Greater London's 7.4 Million physical size. New York is a dense place, it's obvious why you need so many skyscrapers when you're building in less space. This is the same with Hong Kong. But outside of your downtowns the urban build of New York get's pretty thin compared to Greater London's sprawl (and Paris's for that matter). You just look at any aerial of the three cities and it's evident. I can drive through more of London with a constant urban build then I can New York (proper, don't give me non of that metro rubbish).


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

Sitback is right. And MikeHunt is just not getting it. 

On one hand it's true that New York City is denser than "Greater London." 

On the other hand, London's suburbs and exurbs (outside "Greater London") are denser than New York's suburbs and exurbs. While New York's sprawl across the landscape in our typical US manner, London's are in dense little towns and cities. 

Personally I've spent a lot of time in Tunbridge Wells. It's a dense little city of 50,000, far outside Greater London. And it's packed with people who commute into London by train or otherwise every day (my sister for example). 

On to population. If New York is 21,000,000, then London probably is 14,000,000 or 18,000,000. The New York figure covers a gigantic geographic area. If NY gets to count sprawl 80 miles away, London can sure as hell count towns 20 or 30 miles away.


----------



## mad_nick (May 13, 2004)

^ The inner NY suburbs, especially in NJ, are denser than London's inner suburbs, but London's outer suburbs, like in most european cities, are denser than New York's outer suburbs.


----------



## I'mBack (Jan 15, 2005)

nick-taylor said:


> Well I for one won't be using the internet and school books as credible authoritative sources over the UK Government and the Greater London Authority which state that London has a metropolitan area of 18mn!


:| Nick, I was replying to Butcher's claim "most londoners agree that the greater London metro has 18 million of people", which I dont agree, as I believe the most of people cant really quantify London population (not everybody is keen on figures as the most of forumers in this forum); moreover I mentioned "school books and internet" as they are still the major sources for people to get information, therefore I'm sure the most of londonners able to "quantify" london's population, will back their claim by mentioning what they read on books or internet sites.

Btw, I will speak more of a "Metropolitan REGION" than a "Metropolitan AREA" when quoting "18 millions of people".



Butcher said:


> Most Londoners agree that the greater london metro has 18 million people, while the city proper has approximately 7.5 million people and is also the 32 boroughs.


----------



## I'mBack (Jan 15, 2005)

This is from wikipedia:

"_In 2004, the Government of Greater London officially defined a metropolitan region centered on London with a population of approximately 18 million people, including a large portion (though not all of) the South East England and East of England regions ........ *A metropolitan region is not the same as a metropolitan area. * It is a region where there are a vast number of linkages and networks between all the urban settlements. Another metropolitan region is the one extending from Rotterdam to Cologne along the Rhine River, with about 30 million people in it._ 

And the last sentence it's for you Nick  
*It should be noted, however, that the metropolitan region of London defined here bears little or no relation to what "London" is understood to be by the British public.*


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

mhays said:


> Sitback is right. And MikeHunt is just not getting it.
> 
> On one hand it's true that New York City is denser than "Greater London."
> 
> ...


Hays, for how long and when did you live in NY and London given your authoritative statements on their respective suburbs. Where did you live in each city?

PS: Tunbridge Wells in not nearly as dense as Bridgeport, CT, which is 60 miles from Manhattan.


----------



## Sitback (Nov 1, 2004)

Listen. The population of Greater London, which is the full extent of London is 7.4 Million. End of story.

Greater London is as much of an entire city as the 5 states of New York.

New York has 8 Mill, London has 7.4 Mill

HOORAY!


----------



## Tubeman (Sep 12, 2002)

MikeHunt said:


> The basic point that's being lost here is that London is a much smaller city than NY. It has half the population density of NY, and it has only 7m people in an area that includes suburbs in Kent (like my friend's town -- Chislehurst). As I said, no one suggests that London is any less better because of its size disadvantage. In 30 years, Mumbai and Shanghai may be clearly bigger than NY -- but they won't be better.


Chislehurst is only Kent according to the Royal Mail and perhaps some of the residents.

It is in the *London Borough* of Bromley

The confusion arises because when the postal districts were drawn up in the 1930's The County of London only covered Central London, all of the suburbs belonged to other counties,

e.g.

Bromley, Chislehurst, Bexley, Erith etc = Kent
Barking, Romford, Ilford, Upminster etc = Essex
Croydon, Kingston, Sutton, Richmond etc = Surrey
Hounslow, Brentford, Harrow, Uxbridge etc = Middlesex

Middlesex disappeared completely when Greater London was created, there is no such place, but if you're sending a letter to Hounslow you'd still address it to "Hounslow, Middlesex" as opposed to "Hounslow, London".

The clue's in the postcode... Any postcode beginning with a compass point e.g. W1, NW14, SE27, SW4 lies within the old County of London, any beginning with the postal town e.g. TW = Twickenham, RM = Romford, HA = Harrow were outside of the County of London but are now in Greater London.

So in short, what's your point?


----------



## Canary Wharf (Sep 13, 2002)

He doesn't have one. 

I mean, basing city populations on post codes - it's ridiculous!


----------



## nick_taylor (Mar 7, 2003)

MikeHunt said:


> The basic point that's being lost here is that London is a much smaller city than NY. It has half the population density of NY, and it has only 7m people in an area that includes suburbs in Kent (like my friend's town -- Chislehurst). As I said, no one suggests that London is any less better because of its size disadvantage. In 30 years, Mumbai and Shanghai may be clearly bigger than NY -- but they won't be better.


Well New York has half the population density of the City of Paris.....that must mean that its a smaller city.

Also Chislehurst is in the London Borough of Bromley (I assume your mind is with us in 2005 and not back in 1963 ). 


Another thing that you missing out is the fact that New York developed along different lines that London did. New York sprawled out and pretty much demolished everythin in its path. London sprawled out but connected thousands of villages (hence why you get areas close to the centre resembling villages) which have been around as long as London itself. This network of villages all tied together in an urban fabric has meant an essentially moderately density populated city has developed.

Staten Island as an example shares many characteristics with London Boroughs as it actually has quite a low population density compared to the other New York boroughs - is Staten Island now a suburb and exempt from New York and what about when compared to Paris. All of the boroughs except Manhattan would be "suburban" in that view....well this is using your logic here so it must mean only Manhattan is the city proper of New York!






I'mBack said:


> Nick, I was replying to Butcher's claim "most londoners agree that the greater London metro has 18 million of people", which I dont agree, as I believe the most of people cant really quantify London population (not everybody is keen on figures as the most of forumers in this forum); moreover I mentioned "school books and internet" as they are still the major sources for people to get information, therefore I'm sure the most of londonners able to "quantify" london's population, will back their claim by mentioning what they read on books or internet sites.
> 
> Btw, I will speak more of a "Metropolitan REGION" than a "Metropolitan AREA" when quoting "18 millions of people".


I wasn't arguing about the point of whether Londoners know the metro figure or whether your incorrect that people were sourcing the wrong figure. I was stating (and read my post carefully again as I worded it just right) that: _"I won't be using the internet and school books as credible authoritative sources over the UK Government and the Greater London Authority which state that London has a metropolitan area."_





I'mBack said:


> Btw, I will speak more of a "Metropolitan REGION" than a "Metropolitan AREA" when quoting "18 millions of people".


Also the GLA does refer to London having a metropolitan region, but theres one small problem (if you had read the London Plan it would have actually spelt it out for you!)

http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/strategies/sds/london_plan/lon_plan_all.pdf
Page 18

_London is part of a metropolitan region of over 18 million people. This
forms a ‘mega-city region’ in which there are a vast number of linkages
and networks between all the urban settlements. Within this wider region,
*London performs the functions characteristic of the central city. It is the
main generator and source of jobs as well as of culture, leisure and
higher-level shopping activities.* The interactions within the mega-city
region are increasing. The Mayor supports polycentric development across
the mega-city region in which Central London, London’s town centres and
the towns in the other two regions develop in a complementary manner.
He also supports the government’s proposed growth areas4 in Milton
Keynes, Thames Gateway, London-Stansted-Cambridge and Ashford
as important contributions to dealing with the pressures on land and
development in the mega-city region and sees these as complementary_


The bit in bold is practically what a metropolitan area is...don't always trust the internet (like I ironically said earlier in this thread), because you might not actually get an authoritative answer.


----------



## I'mBack (Jan 15, 2005)

nick-taylor said:


> _"I won't be using the internet and school books as credible authoritative sources over the UK Government and the Greater London Authority which state that London has a *metropolitan area*of 18mn!"_


You won't be using the internet and school books, .... but most people do... that was my point...

(_read my post carefully again_) 

Btw, GLA states a .... "*metropolitan region*". 



nick-taylor said:


> ...don't always trust the internet (like I ironically said earlier in this thread), because you might not actually get an authoritative answer.


I dont, but it seems you do according to your convinience ....

btw, I won't "trust" whatever GLA states just because it makes you feel bigger .... we all know Ken loves making up figures and exagerating stats, a little bit like you 

and dont get it wrong again "GLA states a metropolitan *REGION*", and at the moment it's the only one claiming the 18 mil figure.


----------



## elliott (Sep 23, 2002)

Yes the Main part of NY is denser than London, however (and i love this fact :SAD is that England and the State of NY are virtually the same size yet England has 30m more ppl, now thats what i call density.


----------



## mad_nick (May 13, 2004)

^ What does that have to do with the topic? New York State is largely rural upstate save for a few medium size cities. Very little of the state is part of the New York City area. (Though the majority of the population is in the NYC area)


----------



## mad_nick (May 13, 2004)

While the size of cities are generally compared by political boundaries, maybe that's not such a good thing. Paris, for instance, is far larger than what the city proper would indicate, and Houston is about as large as London in area, but has a population of only 2 million, and there are countless other examples where the size of the city within the political boundaries does not reflect the actual size of the city.
IMO, a far better way of comparing the size of a city would be by comparing the population of continuous "urban" areas. Of course there would have to be a generally agreed upon definition of "urbanity" and a way of determining which areas fit those definitions and which do not.
NYC would most likely gain areas in Northern NJ and some areas north of the city (Yonkers, Mt. Vernon), but would lose most of Staten Island and NE Queens.


----------



## Third of a kind (Jun 20, 2004)

I hate to come in this thread a little late, but I'm a bit confused about the boundaries of the whole London and its metropolitain area, I know there is a part of London called the city of london and I think thats something that keeps getting me confused

and another question, is there a base fare for the tube or is it by distance? and does it stay within london's city limits???

thanks!!!!


----------



## jmancuso (Jan 9, 2003)

i'm so confused.  



elliott said:


> Yes the Main part of NY is denser than London, however (and i love this fact :SAD is that England and the State of NY are virtually the same size yet England has 30m more ppl, now thats what i call density.


besides new york city, there are only three other decent sized metro areas (buffalo, rochester and albany) in new york state where as england has quite a few and all are significantly larger than any other than any city besides NYC.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

elliott said:


> Yes the Main part of NY is denser than London, however (and i love this fact :SAD is that England and the State of NY are virtually the same size yet England has 30m more ppl, now thats what i call density.


The 500 mile stretch from Boston to Washington, DC has 60 million people and is smaller than the UK! That's population density, Elliot! (Also, there are no sheep farms in that stretch a la the UK!) Moreover, the 60 M people in that 500 mile area are concentrated in an area that goes no more than 60 miles west of the Atlantic Ocean's coast line.


----------



## A42251 (Sep 13, 2004)

*


mad_nick said:



While the size of cities are generally compared by political boundaries, maybe that's not such a good thing. Paris, for instance, is far larger than what the city proper would indicate, and Houston is about as large as London in area, but has a population of only 2 million, and there are countless other examples where the size of the city within the political boundaries does not reflect the actual size of the city.
IMO, a far better way of comparing the size of a city would be by comparing the population of continuous "urban" areas. Of course there would have to be a generally agreed upon definition of "urbanity" and a way of determining which areas fit those definitions and which do not.
NYC would most likely gain areas in Northern NJ and some areas north of the city (Yonkers, Mt. Vernon), but would lose most of Staten Island and NE Queens.

Click to expand...

*Political city proper bounderies are a perfectly fine way to compare, just as long as you be sure to indicate the land area, as well as the population.

For example, Houston and Paris both have 2 million people. However, one covers 600 square miles and the other covers 41. Knwoing that, you now have sufficient information to make a meaningful comparison along political city proper bounderies.


----------



## Bikkel (Jun 8, 2005)

since when do postal codes not count?

If Royal logistics are the laugh of your city, well dump the royal family then


----------



## Butcher (Dec 13, 2004)

I'mBack said:


> :| Nick, I was replying to Butcher's claim "most londoners agree that the greater London metro has 18 million of people", which I dont agree, as I believe the most of people cant really quantify London population (not everybody is keen on figures as the most of forumers in this forum); moreover I mentioned "school books and internet" as they are still the major sources for people to get information, therefore I'm sure the most of londonners able to "quantify" london's population, will back their claim by mentioning what they read on books or internet sites.
> 
> Btw, I will speak more of a "Metropolitan REGION" than a "Metropolitan AREA" when quoting "18 millions of people".


 I was refering to the Londoners on this forum, most of who will tell you that the greater london metro "region" (being specific as to not confuse people like I'mback) has a population of 18 million people. btw, thanks for informing me that most londoners don't give a s**t what he population of their own city is!


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

MikeHunt said:


> Hays, for how long and when did you live in NY and London given your authoritative statements on their respective suburbs. Where did you live in each city?
> 
> PS: Tunbridge Wells in not nearly as dense as Bridgeport, CT, which is 60 miles from Manhattan.


I highly doubt that. The town of Tunbridge Wells includes significant rural areas. If the English had political boundaries in the US style, Tunbridge Wells would be well above 12,000 per square mile I'm guessing, easily beating Bridgeport. Even with TW's massive inner-city "greens" and "commons" so typical in Britain. PS, why are you using a city more than twice TW's size, anyway? 

Meanwhile, Tunbridge Wells is typical of English density, with towns full of duplexes and townhouses. Bridgeport is not typical of NY exurban density, even though there are a lot of similar places around NY. 

PS, I've been in London (Richmond, Hammersmith) and Tunbridge Wells probably five or six months total on about 15 trips, constantly exploring of course. I've been to New York less, but still several times. I stayed with friends in West New York for a while. Yes, I'm perfectly comfortable saying what I'm saying.


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

Two things I find amusing here. One is the questioning of the word "region" over "area".

How does anyone know what reference the writer had, when he/she uses either "area" or "region". There is certainly no international standard of what each word actually means, just like there is no international standard over how a metropolitan area is calculated.

One point to keep in mind, is that if one uses the French INSEE method of calculating metropoliutan "areas", then the population of London's MA, just tops 17million. London uses a different method (like every country in the world uses a different method) and the result was 18million, and the term used was "region". New York also uses a different term for the 21million for the city. It's not called a Metropolitan area, but a C.M.S.A. which has a very important key word in it... "combined".

Just food for thought there. Words can have different meanings in different country's, or different words can mean the same thing.

The other point is that most Londoner's don't consider London's MA to be 18million. That is certainly true. However, the main reason for that, is that Londerner's, until incredibly recently, had absolutely no idea what a metropolitan area was. There were no such figures, and MA's are still not a figure that rolls of the tongue in Britain like they do in the U.S. 

If you ask 20 people on the streets of London to describe what an MA was, 19 would probably shrug their shulders. Most would probably never had heard of the term. 

As Britain has no national standard for MA's, and MA's don't appear in any cencus statistic, it is unlikely that any MA figure would be known by the general public for quite some time. Whenever I ask a Londoner how big their city is, they only know one figure - the city proper. When I ask them how big it is with all the outlying area's, suburbs and commuter range, their answers are something between 12-22million. Hell, one guy in a pub insisted that London has 21million "commuters" coming into the city every day, and another friend thought 30million people lived within the M25!

London's government does indeed use the 18million figure for the metropolitan area around London. On all the documents I have seen, they did indeed use the word "region". However, I have seen the words "region and area" crossed over on so many other cities for the same statistic, I also am well aware that using the French INSEE method, London's MA exceeds 17million (and the French directly translate their aire urbaine as metropolitan area, not to be confused with urban area which in French is unité urbaine)

Anyone can pick at all these things as much as we like. It doesn't make it easy that the British government has no National Standards like the French or U.S. for any metropolitan area's, but all I can say is one thing, if you don't like the London government figure of 18million, and consider it something "different" because of the term "region", then just use the French INSEE calculation, which gives 17million. The French method uses 40% commuting percentage into the urban core or surrounding MA)


----------



## Canary Wharf (Sep 13, 2002)

Third of a kind said:


> I hate to come in this thread a little late, but I'm a bit confused about the boundaries of the whole London and its metropolitain area, I know there is a part of London called the city of london and I think thats something that keeps getting me confused


The City of London measures roughly a mile by a mile (hence why it is sometimes known as the "Square Mile") and has a population of about 8'000 - BUT it is where the exchanges are (stock exchange, petroleum exchange, commodities, futures, etc) and is the financial centre of London. It is the ancient centre of London and its boundaries have never really changed much (a street added, a row taken away, a new bridge built) in the past 1000 years. It is governed by the Lord Mayor and the Corporation of London, two ancient institutions, and it is the only place in the UK where businesses have the vote (on the basis of the number of employees). Technically this Square Mile _is_ London.

Greater London is an administrative area of England, these days described chiefly as a Region, which covers most of the settlement of London and its suburbs. It consists of 32 London Boroughs and the City of London. One of the boroughs is the City of Westminster (which is where Parliament, government buildings and Buckingham Palace all are). This is today commonly seen as being "London" and since 2000 has its own city/regional government, with a Mayor and an Assembly. There are however bits of the London urban area outside the Greater London boundary, and that is what we are arguing in this thread about. The population of Greater London is 7.3 million - a fact.

London's metro area extends waaaaay out into the "Home Counties", Essex, Surrey, Kent, etc. It's population is estimated at around 14 million. However, in England we tend not to do metro areas, so it's up to forumers here to debate just what the actual population is.


----------



## nick_taylor (Mar 7, 2003)

If you want to confuse things even more, there are the enclaves of Inner & Middle Temple (there are four Inns of Court, Inner & Middle are two, Lincoln's Inn and Gray's Inn are the other two and this is where barristers train) within the City of London which aren't controlled by the City of London. Literally an enclave within a city of a city! :laugh:

Historically Inner & Middle Temple get their name from the crusader knights the Knights Templar. Temple Church is where a few Crusaders are buried, but interestingly it is also the site of where part of the Magna Carta (world's first liberal writings - a sort of early constitution) were drawn up for England.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

mhays said:


> I highly doubt that. The town of Tunbridge Wells includes significant rural areas. If the English had political boundaries in the US style, Tunbridge Wells would be well above 12,000 per square mile I'm guessing, easily beating Bridgeport. Even with TW's massive inner-city "greens" and "commons" so typical in Britain. PS, why are you using a city more than twice TW's size, anyway?
> 
> Meanwhile, Tunbridge Wells is typical of English density, with towns full of duplexes and townhouses. Bridgeport is not typical of NY exurban density, even though there are a lot of similar places around NY.
> 
> PS, I've been in London (Richmond, Hammersmith) and Tunbridge Wells probably five or six months total on about 15 trips, constantly exploring of course. I've been to New York less, but still several times. I stayed with friends in West New York for a while. Yes, I'm perfectly comfortable saying what I'm saying.


I don't doubt that you're comfortable with your statements, but that does not give you sufficient insight. How many times have you been to Bridgeport and where did you stay?


----------



## Canary Wharf (Sep 13, 2002)

nick-taylor said:


> If you want to confuse things even more, there are the enclaves of Inner & Middle Temple (there are four Inns of Court, Inner & Middle are two, Lincoln's Inn and Gray's Inn are the other two and this is where barristers train) within the City of London which aren't controlled by the City of London. Literally an enclave within a city of a city! :laugh:
> 
> Historically Inner & Middle Temple get their name from the crusader knights the Knights Templar. Temple Church is where a few Crusaders are buried, but interestingly it is also the site of where part of the Magna Carta (world's first liberal writings - a sort of early constitution) were drawn up for England.


Yeah the Temple area of London is _VERY_ intriguing! The Inner and Middle Temple areas aren't really governed by anyone... :crazy:


----------



## Bikkel (Jun 8, 2005)

:blahblah:

do you londoners realize that Paris/BNLX/NRW/Hessen is thrice the size of London, if not more? Claiming the entire counties of Kent, Surrey, Essex, Suffolk and so on would allow other urban centers to make such claims in their regions just as well.

If you think of London as Europe's capital, you've missed the point. Europe knows no capital.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

This, my friends, is density!


----------



## nick_taylor (Mar 7, 2003)

Bikkel said:


> do you londoners realize that Paris/BNLX/NRW/Hessen is thrice the size of London, if not more? Claiming the entire counties of Kent, Surrey, Essex, Suffolk and so on would allow other urban centers to make such claims i


 Actually nobody is saying that the counties of Kent, Surrey, Essex, Suffolk, etc are actually part of city proper London. Parts of these counties (and others) do have urban areas connected to London and are part of the London metro, but by metro population, London is the largest in Europe.




MikeHunt - Good for Manhattan, but using your argument (of density) thats the only true part of New York City when its compared to say Paris.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

nick-taylor said:


> Actually nobody is saying that the counties of Kent, Surrey, Essex, Suffolk, etc are actually part of city proper London. Parts of these counties (and others) do have urban areas connected to London and are part of the London metro, but by metro population, London is the largest in Europe.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nick: You're really infatuated by Parisian density! London and Paris are magnificent, but they are both a lot smaller than NYC.


----------



## elliott (Sep 23, 2002)

MikeHunt said:


> The 500 mile stretch from Boston to Washington, DC has 60 million people and is smaller than the UK! That's population density, Elliot! (Also, there are no sheep farms in that stretch a la the UK!) Moreover, the 60 M people in that 500 mile area are concentrated in an area that goes no more than 60 miles west of the Atlantic Ocean's coast line.


Yeah but in that your lumping together about 6 states, if thats the case why not lump togther e.g England, France, Belgium, Holland and Germany and thats what i call density, or if you dont agree with that how about a line of cities similar to the East Coast Group you said e.g. London, paris, zurich and Milan yeah its not your 500 miles but it still holds more ppl.


----------



## elliott (Sep 23, 2002)

Also, i just compared the State of NY to that of England nowhere else just State to State as we are roughly the same size. However England (tell me if i'm wrong) is less easy to build on as were an island and have the pennines running through the north of the country.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

No disrespect, but what you're saying makes no sense. It doesn't matter if NY, Massachusetts, etc. aren't in the same states. The area that includes Boston, NY, Philly, etc. is culturally consistent and is, in essence, one contiguous metro area. By contrast, Paris and London are extremely different culturally and they are not one contiguous metro area. (There's a large body of water between the cities and rural areas!)

PS: Many states in the Northeast US are the size of English counties in terms of total area.


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

I think the closer thing in Europe to the american Boswash, is the area going from belgium/netherlands to Milan, going through germany, alsace and swizerland, and yes, it is more populated then the Boswash, but who cares


----------



## elliott (Sep 23, 2002)

Sorry, i just wrote it and didnt read it back to myself. But off what you just said you make it sound as if Europe isnt integrated at all. I believe we are apart from language and lifestyle very integrated just look at the Channel Tunnel Rail Link from London to Paris (Can you get from Boston to Washington in under 2.5 hours without flying) or just like decisions made in DC, ones made in Brussels (although annoying for some) affect all of Europe including Britain. Just like the US we can move freely between states and in all my times apart from flying i have never been asked for my passport.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

elliott said:


> Sorry, i just wrote it and didnt read it back to myself. But off what you just said you make it sound as if Europe isnt integrated at all. I believe we are apart from language and lifestyle very integrated just look at the Channel Tunnel Rail Link from London to Paris (Can you get from Boston to Washington in under 2.5 hours without flying) or just like decisions made in DC, ones made in Brussels (although annoying for some) affect all of Europe including Britain. Just like the US we can move freely between states and in all my times apart from flying i have never been asked for my passport.


The distance between Boston and DC is more than double of that between London and Paris, so the answer to your question is of course not!

Also, London is more similar culturally to NYC, Boston and DC than it is to France, Germany, Italy, etc. For that matter, BosWash, as someone called it, is more similar culturally to the UK (and for that matter to all of Western Europe) than it is to the rest of the US (excluding pockets like SF that are as far geographically from BosWash as London is).


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

What a tiresome troll you are MikeHunt.
Why don't you just seize making these types of threads?

Thanks for pointing out that Paris and London are closer than Boston and DC though..., so much for your "Boshwash" theory...


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

You're tiresome, Shiro. 

Why am I a "troll" (which, by the way, is a moronic term)? Is it because you don't agree with me? If so, so much for your "united in diversity" slogan!

I suspect that you are offended because I said that BosWash and London are closer culturally than are London and Paris. They are. Anyone who thinks that England is closer culturally to Greece, Italy or Spain (just because they are in Europe), than it is to the Northeastern US (or for that matter Canada or Australia) is delusional.

As a comparison, NYC is on the same continent as Tennessee and is only 700 miles away from it. Yet, cultrurally, they have nothing in common. Similarly, the mind set and culture in the UK and Italy or Spain are extremely different (despite the geographic proximity). 

P.S.: The word is "cease" not "seize".


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

I call you a troll because it's my job to spot trolls on the forum. This thread is a very clear example of a thread started solely for the purpose of trolling.

Your false comparisons are becoming tiresome. You take one European extreme and compare it to another. New York and London being closer culturally than London and Paris is not obviously true. I wonder how you want to prove something like that. For every example you come up with, I bet I can come up with something that says otherwise.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

MikeHunt said:


> I don't doubt that you're comfortable with your statements, but that does not give you sufficient insight. How many times have you been to Bridgeport and where did you stay?


How many times have you been to Tunbridge Wells? 

And who cares? How is that relevant? 

I've been through Bridgeport twice, and haven't stopped. And I'm very sure that New York's exurban developments aren't as dense as the typical British townhouse/duplex pattern.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

Tell me in what ways you belive that the Greeks, Italians and the French are more similar cuturally to the English than are residents of the Northeastern US. By the way, how many New Yorkers and New Englanders do you know (other than casually having met someone)? 

The purpose of this thread was to rectify and misconception -- not to "troll"!


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

mhays said:


> How many times have you been to Tunbridge Wells?
> 
> And who cares? How is that relevant?
> 
> I've been through Bridgeport twice, and haven't stopped. And I'm very sure that New York's exurban developments aren't as dense as the typical British townhouse/duplex pattern.


I've been there many times, as I have many friends in Kent. As I suspected, your superficial observation of Bridgeport is meaningless!


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

PS, I'm not calling MikeHunt a troll, per se. But there's a pattern on his threads. Arguing with him is like arguing with a brick wall. No logic or fact will get past his cemented preconceptions. And when he feels vulnerable, he's not man enough to admit he's wrong, or might be, but instead tries to change the subject.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

I'm not wrong, Hays. You live in Seattle, and yet you're making statements about NY and London based upon your limited observation. Why should I accept your limited perceptions as true when I lived in NY and London and had a much greater opportunity to observe (and have perceived to the contrary)? You have cited no facts whatsoever. You've only profferred your observations, which I perceive to be limited. No offense, but that's my impression.

P.S.: Notwithstanding your flawed observations (yet again), I don't feel vulnerable on an internet board. If you do, I recommend that you seek counseling immediately!


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

It's remarkable that you're such an expert in both cities yet your observations are generally disagreed with. Maybe residency isn't such as great path to enlightenment. Or maybe you're myopic. Or maybe you're biased. Or maybe all those other people are wrong and it's a big conspiracy. 

Facts? Your facts are evidence for adages such as "know enough to be dangerous" and "a little knowledge is worse than no knowledge at all". Every time you make a non-parallel comparison I wonder if you even realize it.


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

Bikkel said:


> :blahblah:
> 
> do you londoners realize that Paris/BNLX/NRW/Hessen is thrice the size of London, if not more? Claiming the entire counties of Kent, Surrey, Essex, Suffolk and so on would allow other urban centers to make such claims in their regions just as well.
> 
> If you think of London as Europe's capital, you've missed the point. Europe knows no capital.


Interesting assumption. First of all. the 18million area around London defined by the GLA as it's metro is approx 22,000km² (compared for instance to NY's 27,000km²). This doesn't include all of the Southeast or East by a long shot, which by the way has been explained so many times on this forum it's a wonder why it hasn't settled in.

Paris's official INSEE metropolitan area is approx 14,000km² (It is slightly larger than the Ile de France) and this has the 11.5million or so people. There has been a seperate academic study that suggests Paris's true commuter belt covers an area near 20,000km², but this only increases the population to 13million. 

The Rhein Ruhr has approx 12million people in 16,000km². It is true that if you took a 22,000km² area around the Rhein Ruhr then it could exceed 18million, in fact, it probably would, there is much talk that from the center of the Rhein Ruhr, there is over 20million people within an hour's drive. However, whether this area does operate with enough commuting to justify such a Metropolitan area, I don't know. Defining an MA is not just a matter of guessing, but should be created by proper scientific methods. I am under the understanding that the 16,000km² around the Rhein Ruhr is quite restrictive in it's definition of commuting, i.e. it requires a far higher percentage than the American's, French or even London uses to define their MA.

Polycentric MA's are perfectly valid, but they do pose problems when defining. And I won't try to say I fully understand the methods used for the Rhein Ruhr.

Besides, this shouldn't be a war over which city has the biggest MA in Europe. If the Rhein Ruhr does indeed one day work itself out as a larger area than now defined, and the largest MA in Europe, then so be it. That is still no reason to denounce London's MA without proper scientific evidence. If you have sat down and calculated the commuting around London using a comparable formular to other country's MA's and found a smaller area than what is officially published, then present this information. But if you are just against the idea of MA's in general, or don't like London currently having the largest MA in Europe for personal reasons, this is really not the right way to be looking at things.

It seems to me that the main reason people doubt the MA of London, is that they simply don't understand what an MA really is, and how it is calculated. An MA includes the urban core of a city, then any towns, cities and villages directly around it that have enough commuting into the core AND to other towns, cities and villages in any direction around it that is also part of the MA. Then working further out, towns and cities that are connected to either the previous towns and cities that are part of the MA OR the central Urban core are added, and so on, and so on, until these towns no longer have sufficient connections. 

This is the way they are done in the U.S. (although they use entire counties instead of individual towns and cities), it is the way they are calculated in France, and any other _proper_ metro. The commuting doesn't have to all go into the city proper, or the central city, after all, sometimes the city proper is much smaller than the direct urban area.


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

MikeHunt said:


> I suspect that you are offended because I said that BosWash and London are closer culturally than are London and Paris. They are. Anyone who thinks that England is closer culturally to Greece, Italy or Spain (just because they are in Europe), than it is to the Northeastern US (or for that matter Canada or Australia) is delusional.


Actually, living in Germany now, I will clearly say that Britian is culturally closer to Germany than the U.S. 

The only major simularity to the U.S. is the language. People in Britain live in smaller denser homes than America, but móre similar to how the German's live. They socialize in pubs more similar to German bars than American, dine at resturants more similar to German than American, have working conditions more similar to German than American, watch much of the same sport, go on holiday's to more of the same places. There are so many simularities.

Of cause, there are many differences as well, but putting the language aside, a Britain who moves to Germany experiences a much more similar lifestyle than they have at home, compared to one that moves to America.


----------



## nick_taylor (Mar 7, 2003)

Well its just interesting that your trying to make a statement that is based on population density for London....but the same statement could be used in reverse to argue against four of the five boroughs that make up New York City when compared to the City of Paris. Somehow I don't think you thought that part out in your flawed little crusade (and aren't you a litigation lawyer?)


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

nick-taylor said:


> Well its just interesting that your trying to make a statement that is based on population density for London....but the same statement could be used in reverse to argue against four of the five boroughs that make up New York City when compared to the City of Paris. Somehow I don't think you thought that part out in your flawed little crusade (and aren't you a litigation lawyer?)


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

nick-taylor said:


> Well its just interesting that your trying to make a statement that is based on population density for London....but the same statement could be used in reverse to argue against four of the five boroughs that make up New York City when compared to the City of Paris. Somehow I don't think you thought that part out in your flawed little crusade (and aren't you a litigation lawyer?)


Nick, you don't seem to grasp basic logic, nor do you possess fundamental reading comprehension skills. How old are you and what is your educational background? I did not say that population density is dispositive with respect to determining population. It could be indicative, particularly in an instance, in which NY's in double London's. Nonetheless, you inferred something that I never said.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

Justme said:


> Actually, living in Germany now, I will clearly say that Britian is culturally closer to Germany than the U.S.
> 
> The only major simularity to the U.S. is the language. People in Britain live in smaller denser homes than America, but móre similar to how the German's live. They socialize in pubs more similar to German bars than American, dine at resturants more similar to German than American, have working conditions more similar to German than American, watch much of the same sport, go on holiday's to more of the same places. There are so many simularities.
> 
> Of cause, there are many differences as well, but putting the language aside, a Britain who moves to Germany experiences a much more similar lifestyle than they have at home, compared to one that moves to America.


I don't necessarily agree with you statements. However, your reply addresses something that I never asserted. I did not say that England is more culturally similar to the US than it is to the continent. I said that it's more culturally similar to BosWash than it is to the continent.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

mhays said:


> It's remarkable that you're such an expert in both cities yet your observations are generally disagreed with. Maybe residency isn't such as great path to enlightenment. Or maybe you're myopic. Or maybe you're biased. Or maybe all those other people are wrong and it's a big conspiracy.
> 
> Facts? Your facts are evidence for adages such as "know enough to be dangerous" and "a little knowledge is worse than no knowledge at all". Every time you make a non-parallel comparison I wonder if you even realize it.


Hays, you are funny. Spending several years in two cities enables one to make more accurate observations than a casual visitor to those two cities can. For example, I've been to Bridgeport hundreds of times, and you drove through it twice (and did not stop). I am in a much better position to make valid observations about Brideport than you are. If you can't comprehend that, then there's no point in discussing this issue with you.

PS: On the journey to Tunbridge Wells from London, one travels through miles and miles of rural areas before hitting the town. By contrast, when traveling from Grand Central to Bridgeport, one goes through extremely dense urban and suburban areas during the entire 70 mile journey.


----------



## nick_taylor (Mar 7, 2003)

MikeHunt said:


> Nick, you don't seem to grasp basic logic, nor do you possess fundamental reading comprehension skills. How old are you and what is your educational background? I did not say that population density is dispositive with respect to determining population. It could be indicative, particularly in an instance, in which NY's in double London's. Nonetheless, you inferred something that I never said.


Actually if you read back to your very first original post in this thread you would note you were trying to compare New York to London. In this original comparison you used both population and area for both cities to try and argue that most of London isn't really a city when compared to London. You were in other words trying to argue that because a lot of the outer boroughs of London were of a low density, that these areas weren't really part of the actual city proper of London.

I inturn then stated that using your exact same argument, that the low density (whe compared to the City of Paris) of four of New York's boroughs might not actually constitute part of New York City. All I was simply doing was changing the examples around and using your logic to come to the conclusion that I have elaborated already on.

There is thus no requirement to question my edcuational background or reasoning when I was simply re-using your logic to un-weave your original statement and you know exactly that I'm right (other forumers have even noted this, so its not like I'm on my own).


----------



## Bikkel (Jun 8, 2005)

Justme said:


> Interesting assumption. First of all. the 18million area around London defined by the GLA as it's metro is approx 22,000km² (compared for instance to NY's 27,000km²). This doesn't include all of the Southeast or East by a long shot, which by the way has been explained so many times on this forum it's a wonder why it hasn't settled in.


Because the GLA can now use the figures to demand the appriopriate funding, if the area would include the entire counties which would make it 19mln/and much larger than 22,000km² London will look 'less' than NYC or Paris
And London will keep it that way. You just try to reach London from Walmer. I think the romans did it a lot quicker when they got to Deal 2000 years ago
Anyway Dover isn't part of the GLA, is it?


----------



## Sitback (Nov 1, 2004)

I think MikeHunt is just up set that London as a city proper is twice the physical size then New York proper.

Deal with it and hush. Gawd.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

No. I've simply stated repeatedly that the London metro is a lot smaller than New York's. London's metro area seems more akin to Chicago than it does to NY.


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

So 18 million is closer to 9 million than to 21 million?

Sure...:crazy:


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

No... I think that the London metro figure is more like 13M to 14M, which is the total of the population of Greater London, Kent, Surrey, Essex, Sussex, Hertsfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire. In fact, in the metro population figures that I recently posted, London's 12.4M included the following areas: Greater London-Surrey-East Berkshire-Buckinghamshire-Hertfordshire-South Essex-West Kent. What other areas do you suggest be included? Wales? The South of France? Anyway, the 13 to 14M number is closer to Chicago's metro population than it is to NY's.



Also, as I've said, the distance from the center of London to the end of Essex or Kent equals the distance from NY to Philly. Therefore, if NY and Philly are one metro (and, by the way, they are one contiguous, fully populated area), then NY's metro is well over 30M.


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

Whatever...take your complaint to the London mayor or the French statistics bureau INSEE.

How clueless can a person get?


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

SHiRO said:


> Whatever...take your complaint to the London mayor or the French statistics bureau INSEE.
> 
> How clueless can a person get?


You are not too bright, mate. Why don't you answer the question that I posed: namely, other than Greater London and the Home Counties (whose population does not equal 18M), what additional areas, in your esteemed opinion, constitute the London metro? Where do these other 4.5M people come from? Wales? Manchester? France?


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

When are you going to get it through your thick skull that the 18 million figure is a officially measured figure, measured a slightly different way than how the US Census measures metro area's? The INSEE method is different (and more strict than the US Census method) and they still get to a 17 million figure!
It's all there in this thread, dude. Learn to read!

Who cares about the home counties, the method doesn't use counties like the US Census does.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

SHiRO said:


> When are you going to get it through your thick skull that the 18 million figure is a officially measured figure, measured a slightly different way than how the US Census measures metro area's? The INSEE method is different (and more strict than the US Census method) and they still get to a 17 million figure!
> It's all there in this thread, dude. Learn to read!
> 
> Who cares about the home counties, the method doesn't use counties like the US Census does.


You are rude (in addition to being a moron). (By the way, it was your choice to initiate insults -- not mine).

Does INSEE count people twice? If you want to consider half of England in the metro figures, then let's consider the same area for NY -- it has 60 M people!


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

I never called you names (why do the trolls always play this game).
Using phrases like "clueless" or "thick skull" are not personal attacks. Moron is btw.

You are a hopeless cause. Unable to admit you are wrong, bringing up totally unrelated issues.
London's 18 million metro is 22,000 sq km
vs
NY 21 million metro 27,000 sq km

So...no, if we take the same area NY does not have 60 million.
Enough said.

And I'll tell you another thing. Your Bosh/Wash or Megalopolis or whatever you want to call it holds less population than the Blue Banana (which London is part of) also.

You aren't even able to understand the concept of cities or metro areas, so why are you even participating in these kinds of threads?


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

SHiRO said:


> I never called you names (why do the trolls always play this game).
> Using phrases like "clueless" or "thick skull" are not personal attacks. Moron is btw.
> 
> You are a hopeless cause. Unable to admit you are wrong, bringing up totally unrelated issues.
> ...


Please provide your source for these figures. They sound clearly wrong. Moreover, how many times can I ask where 18M comes from when Greater London and the Home Counties have a population of 13M? You haven't answered where they come from. Wales? France? Furthermore, how many times can I say that the Home Counties are an enormous area. From the southernmost point in Sussex to Northeastern Essex is about 150 miles. Remember what I've said repeatedly about Philly and yet you choose to ignnore?


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

Why don't you read back the thread and realise you were wrong all along.
Forget about the homecountries.
And also forget about Philly. New York is already one of the most inflated metro's as it is...


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

Shiro, might as well give up on this guy. People are agreeing with you.


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

MikeHunt said:


> No... I think that the London metro figure is more like 13M to 14M, which is the total of the population of Greater London, Kent, Surrey, Essex, Sussex, Hertsfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire. In fact, in the metro population figures that I recently posted, London's 12.4M included the following areas: Greater London-Surrey-East Berkshire-Buckinghamshire-Hertfordshire-South Essex-West Kent. What other areas do you suggest be included? Wales? The South of France? Anyway, the 13 to 14M number is closer to Chicago's metro population than it is to NY's.
> 
> 
> 
> Also, as I've said, the distance from the center of London to the end of Essex or Kent equals the distance from NY to Philly. Therefore, if NY and Philly are one metro (and, by the way, they are one contiguous, fully populated area), then NY's metro is well over 30M.


The problem is here, you can't just make up a region that "you" believe is a metro, that is, if we are using the correct term of metro, based on commuter percentages. 

You actually have to get out and work out how many people from each area commute to an adjoining area. It's a hell of a lot of work.

The simple fact, is that if one used the French INSEE method, the metropolitan area would be around 17million. When using the British method, it is 18million.

Now, if we were to use the American method, which includes the entire county, and all of the population within, and only a 25% of workforce crossing the county line (compared to the French 40% of total population crossing to another community), who know's how large the London metro would be?

But it has to be calculated, not just guessed. The U.S doesn't "guess" metro area's, so why should London?


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

MikeHunt said:


> Please provide your source for these figures. They sound clearly wrong. Moreover, how many times can I ask where 18M comes from when Greater London and the Home Counties have a population of 13M? You haven't answered where they come from. Wales? France? Furthermore, how many times can I say that the Home Counties are an enormous area. From the southernmost point in Sussex to Northeastern Essex is about 150 miles. Remember what I've said repeatedly about Philly and yet you choose to ignnore?


I already provided the details for you in another post (either this thread or another one, I canb't remember). I'm not going to do it twice, as I don't have time.

My post clearly showed how the population of 18million fits in around 22,000km², all the information is availáble on the internet in public domain.

The key you have to remember, is that Britain is _not_ America, and doesn't include whole counties. So, as an example, you don't have to include the whole area & population of say, Kent. You will also find that although Kent is very large, the majority of the population is on the end closest to London, i.e. the population isn't evenly spread throughout the county, nor is the largest bulk at the furthest corner facing the coast.


----------



## I'mBack (Jan 15, 2005)

mhays said:


> Shiro, might as well give up on this guy. People are agreeing with you.


Well, I'm not 



MikeHunt said:


> No... I think that the London metro figure is more like 13M to 14M, which is the total of the population of Greater London, Kent, Surrey, Essex, Sussex, Hertsfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire. In fact, in the metro population figures that I recently posted, London's 12.4M included the following areas: Greater London-Surrey-East Berkshire-Buckinghamshire-Hertfordshire-South Essex-West Kent. What other areas do you suggest be included?


When with talk about London Metropolitan AREA, I agree more with these kind of figures  

To me, it 18M doesn't seem to be so "real", even though it's the London Authority making this claim (which, again it doesn't talk about Metropolitan area, but REGION!!)! Some forumers are still claiming that 1 british out of 3 (!!!) lives in the London Metro area!?!? (That's why I think it's more correct calling it a REGION!!) 

But if we talk about metropolitan Region, than the biggest MR in Europe would be the metropolitan region extending from Rotterdam to Cologne along the Rhine River, with about 30 million people in it.....? And I think it would be fair to compare the London's MR to the NY-Phil's Metropolitan region....??


----------



## spxy (Apr 9, 2003)

Heres some interesting statistics

London-Newyork-Paris-LA 


This gives inner London as having the largest central population.While New York has the largest urban area.This seams to be direct urban area only.

I believe the 18 million figure disscussed for London includes Southhampton, Reading Portsmouth southend-on-sea Luton and Brighton and the towns and cities around them.


----------



## spxy (Apr 9, 2003)

I'mBack said:


> To me, it 18M doesn't seem to be so "real", even though it's the London Authority making this claim (which, again it doesn't talk about Metropolitan area, but REGION!!)! Some forumers are still claiming that 1 british out of 3 (!!!) lives in the London Metro area!?!? (That's why I think it's more correct calling it a REGION!!)


This map shows were the people live as you can see a third of Britain population can easilly live in and directly around London
population density England/wales 
Times by 100 to get pop per km


----------



## I'mBack (Jan 15, 2005)

spxy said:


> This map shows were the people live as you can see a third of Britain population can easilly live in and directly around London
> population density England/wales
> Times by 100 to get pop per km


Yes, but this doesn't mean they are part of the London metropolitan area as some forumers keep on trying to claim.....??


----------



## spxy (Apr 9, 2003)

But what else could a metropolitan area be?The highly populated ares in the south east are all directly adjacent to London.
What you have to realise is that in Britain they dont often build new housing for workers in major cities on the outskirts of cities anymore as there are so many "green belts" around cities, instead they build the housing in towns and cities nearby.
These houses are marketed and created specifically for people working in the cities, and have srtong transport link to and from these cities.
They are in effect extended suburbs.
You have to ask why there are so many large towns forming a ring around London, if they are not associated with it?


----------



## nick_taylor (Mar 7, 2003)

I'mBack said:


> When with talk about London Metropolitan AREA, I agree more with these kind of figures
> 
> To me, it 18M doesn't seem to be so "real", even though it's the London Authority making this claim (which, again it doesn't talk about Metropolitan area, but REGION!!)! Some forumers are still claiming that 1 british out of 3 (!!!) lives in the London Metro area!?!? (That's why I think it's more correct calling it a REGION!!)
> 
> But if we talk about metropolitan Region, than the biggest MR in Europe would be the metropolitan region extending from Rotterdam to Cologne along the Rhine River, with about 30 million people in it.....? And I think it would be fair to compare the London's MR to the NY-Phil's Metropolitan region....??


Again read the London Plan, as what it states is that the metro region is the same as the metro area, its all down to different wording but the same meaning! It would also only go to start confusing people if we start talking about metro region in what is already a topic that seems to be too hard for a certain forumer here.

And why is it impossible for 1/3 of Brits to live in and around London and in its metro? Its the largest city in Europe by city proper figures and has the largest urban and commuter rail network to match (infact London has the 2nd largest commuter rail network in the world, larger than New York's but smaller than Tokyo's).

And how would it be fair to compare London to New York-Philadelphia which is two metro areas to one which is already smaller by population and land area!

Also you are starting to confuse the Ruhr metro and the Ranstad which are both agglomerations seperated by quite a bit (the distance between Amsterdam and Essen for example is 113 miles, London to Birmingham for example is 105miles). Now when you start talking about immense connective areas you have to think in the terms of the Blue Banana which arcs from London to Milan.


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

I'mBack said:


> Yes, but this doesn't mean they are part of the London metropolitan area as some forumers keep on trying to claim.....??


The only area's that should be part of a metropolotan area, are those deemed to have sufficient commuting. Remember, metropolitan area commuting doesn't actually have to go to the core city, in this case London, as long as they go to other area's around London, which are also connected to the MA, and qualify by commuter percentages.

An MA, isn't just a "guess" at an area, it's a calculation based on a formular.


----------



## mad_nick (May 13, 2004)

spxy said:


> Heres some interesting statistics
> 
> London-Newyork-Paris-LA
> 
> ...


But inner London, with a population of 2.8 million, has an area almost six times larger than Manhattan, which the website defines as NY's "inner area". If you were to make NY's "inner area" as large as London's(124 sq miles), NY's inner area would be at least 4 million.


----------



## spxy (Apr 9, 2003)

mad_nick said:


> But inner London, with a population of 2.8 million, has an area almost six times larger than Manhattan, which the website defines as NY's "inner area". If you were to make NY's "inner area" as large as London's(124 sq miles), NY's inner area would be at least 4 million.


Then you'd be missing the point about what an inner area is.
When tourists mainly go to New york they go to Manhatten, most of the shops, sites, hotels and museums are located there.When Torist go to London they mainly go to the West End , most of the shops, sites , hotels and museums are there.
Londons inner area is bigger then New Yorks same with Paris, in fact only Tokyos is bigger in this regard.
London , Paris and Toyko are capital cities, theres just more stuff there.


----------



## mad_nick (May 13, 2004)

^ I'm no expert on London's geography, but I believe the west end is generally defined as the part of central london west of "the city". That is a far smaller area with a smaller population than inner London.

BTW, I did some calculations, NYC has approximatley 4.7 million in 124 sq miles. (Though obviously it all depends on which parts of the city are included.)
The community districts included are:
All Manhattan CD's and Central Park(not included in any CD)
Bk1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17 and Prospect Park (not included in CD)
Q1,2,3,4,5,6
Bx1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
Here's a map, the red areas were included, they add up to 124.79 sq miles and 4,698,036 people. (2000 census)


source:http://www.demographia.com/db-nyc-ward.htm


----------



## Tubeman (Sep 12, 2002)

mad_nick said:


> ^ I'm no expert on London's geography, but I believe the west end is generally defined as the part of central london west of "the city". That is a far smaller area with a smaller population than inner London.


Correct. "The Core" where London's concerned would be "The City" + "The West End". "Inner London" is everything within the former County of London excluding "The Core". I have no data to back up my claim, but I suggest the population and land area of the latter far outstrips that of the former.

As an aside, do not forget that London was encircled with a "Green Belt" 70 years ago which basically stopped the then rampant suburbanisation of the inner Home Counties dead in its tracks. Therefore it is somewhat "unfair" to compare the continuously built up areas of London and New York, as London's spatial growth was essentially frozen 70 years ago. As has been rightly mentioned, suburban development has since been concentrated on towns often separated from London by large tracts of countryside but which have good transport links into London (e.g. Milton Keynes, Reading, Luton). Significant percentages of their workforce commute to London, and these towns are very much a product of this.


----------



## mad_nick (May 13, 2004)

Tubeman said:


> Correct. "The Core" where London's concerned would be "The City" + "The West End". "Inner London" is everything within the former County of London excluding "The Core". I have no data to back up my claim, but I suggest the population and land area of the latter far outstrips that of the former.


Why would Inner London be London County excluding The West End and The City? I'm assuming you mean culturally or something, because it's certainly not the case in the statistics spxy linked to. (or any other statistics I've seen, including the UK census)


> As an aside, do not forget that London was encircled with a "Green Belt" 70 years ago which basically stopped the then rampant suburbanisation of the inner Home Counties dead in its tracks. Therefore it is somewhat "unfair" to compare the continuously built up areas of London and New York, as London's spatial growth was essentially frozen 70 years ago. As has been rightly mentioned, suburban development has since been concentrated on towns often separated from London by large tracts of countryside but which have good transport links into London (e.g. Milton Keynes, Reading, Luton). Significant percentages of their workforce commute to London, and these towns are very much a product of this.


I agree that it is unfair to compare the continuous urban areas, only if an exception is made for the Green Belt can they be directly compared. Though the statistics spxy linked to seems to take that into account.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

SHiRO said:


> Why don't you read back the thread and realise you were wrong all along.
> Forget about the homecountries.
> And also forget about Philly. New York is already one of the most inflated metro's as it is...



I'm not wrong. What do you mean by "forget the Home Counties"? That gets back to my question, which you're still evading which is what areas do you think the London metro consists of. Obviously, you think that it goes beyond the Home Counties (whose population, along with Greater London's) is well less than 18M. Are you including the who southern third of Britain in your 18M area?


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

spxy said:


> Then you'd be missing the point about what an inner area is.
> When tourists mainly go to New york they go to Manhatten, most of the shops, sites, hotels and museums are located there.When Torist go to London they mainly go to the West End , most of the shops, sites , hotels and museums are there.
> Londons inner area is bigger then New Yorks same with Paris, in fact only Tokyos is bigger in this regard.
> London , Paris and Toyko are capital cities, theres just more stuff there.


Central London is not bigger than NY. Firstly, the most central core of London (the area from Tower Hill to South Kensington) is only about ten miles long (i.e., about the length of Mahattan).

Secondly, there are many great areas in Central London beyond that, but the same holds true in NY. Any tourist who comes to NY and thinks that Manhattan is the only place to go needs new guide books. There are spectacular areas in Brooklyn and elsewhere that he or she would have missed.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

mhays said:


> Shiro, might as well give up on this guy. People are agreeing with you.


Please....

How did someone from a backwater cowtown like Seattle even get involved in this discussion about big cities?


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

spxy said:


> Heres some interesting statistics
> 
> London-Newyork-Paris-LA
> 
> ...



That makes sense. However, this reiterates what I've been saying: namely, Southhampton is 90 southwest of Central London (i.e., same distance as Philadelphia is from NY). Similarly, going northeast from the City to Harwich in Essex is about 90 miles.

The 18M figure would include counties like Somerset, Dorsett and Devon that are not part of the London metro area (like the Home Counties are).


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

dupl.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

MikeHunt said:


> Please....
> 
> How did someone from a backwater cowtown like Seattle even get involved in this discussion about big cities?



Way to stay on topic, slackjaw.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

mhays said:


> Way to stay on topic, slackjaw.


You're the one who initiated rude comments, country boy.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

Funny how so many of your threads end up with you arguing with someone about who was rude first. Sounds like a major personality problem.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

Butcher said:


> *
> The greater London metro region as defined by the British government has a population of 18 million. End of Story*


It's not the end of story because, once again, no one is saying what this area consists of. My guess is that it includes places like Cornwall and Devon that are not part of the London metro area. They are further from London than Philly is from NY, and there are not contiguous, fully populated areas between London and Cornwall (unlike London and Philly). There are farms between London and Cornwall. There are none between NY and Philly.

Greater London and the surrounding counties have a maximum population of about 14M.


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

Again with the counties. Forget about the counties!

Devon and Cornwall are not part of the London metro (are you kidding?). Places like Peterburough, Cambridge, Swindon and Portsmouth are.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

SHiRO said:


> Again with the counties. Forget about the counties!
> 
> Devon and Cornwall are not part of the London metro (are you kidding?). Places like Peterburough, Cambridge, Swindon and Portsmouth are.


You can't forget the counties. What counties are in this area that has 18M people?

Your point re: Peterborough confirms what I've been saying. Peterborough is 90 miles from London (i.e., the same distance as NY to Philly). If you want to include London and Peterborough in one metro area, then so are NY and Philly, and that area has over 32M people.


----------



## nick_taylor (Mar 7, 2003)

MikeHunt said:


> Once again, Nick, what does this "region" consist of? It does not consist of Greater London and the Home Counties, as their population equals about 14M. As I said, if you include all of Southern England including places like Devon, then I can see the 18M figure for that "region". However, Devon is not part of the London metro.


This region which would equate to being a metro area or CMA in the US but under different terms............

*Greater London (City Proper)*
7,172,036 - 1,579km²

*East England (Essex, Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Norfolk, Suffolk)*
8,000,550 - 19,096km²

*South East England (Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, East Sussex, Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Kent, Oxfordshire, Surrey, West Sussex)*
5,388,140 - 19,120km²


*TOTAL*
20,560,726 - 39,795km²


Now what you might think is we said 18mn over 22,000km².....well that holds true as afterall the aforementioned figure doesn't include ALL of South East + East England, but chunks OF. Areas such as The Fens in East England are poorly connected and not connected enough to be part of the metro area, hence why the population of London's metro is now 20,560,726 or its area approaching 40,000km².

Now I can't point to you on a map exactly where the London metro area[region] goes or what shape or form it takes, but I can tell you though that it stretches out along this immense commuter network (which so happens to be larger and longer than New York's) and covers the populated areas that make up a vast amount of the population, but not all of the South-East + East England area.

A comparison with Los Angeles would show that it covers vast areas that technically could be hours away due to poor connectivity to the actual city. If London used a CMA, the population of the London Metro would go up beyond 20mn and infact reach new heights because England is a more densely populated than the North-East Eastern Seaboard and if a CMA with 20% commuting was used (as Justme has stated already), the metro area would verge into the East Midlands and further along as:
a) More people commute at this % from further out areas.
b) The UK public transport network is generally denser, larger, quicker and more efficient than its North-Eastern counterparts allowing quicker commuting from further distances. Hence a person could commute from further away in England simply because the transporation links are far better.

Devon would most likely not be included in a London metro area using the US CMA. Its just too far away, nobody was claiming that and the idea sounds ridiculous when there is enough of a population around London already in Greater London itself and parts of East + South East England!

I think your confusion results from Greater London and Greater New York City. The latter being the metro area title, the other being the city proper but at a lower density.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

nick-taylor said:


> This region which would equate to being a metro area or CMA in the US but under different terms............
> 
> *Greater London (City Proper)*
> 7,172,036 - 1,579km²
> ...


Finally, someone has identified the mystery area!!!! However, Norfolk, Suffolk and the Isle of Wight (let alone all of Hampshire and Cambridgshire) are not part of the London metro! You can say so if you want to, but I can say that Baltimore (let alone) Philadelphia is part of the NY metro and that it has 50M people. Indeed, let compares apples to apples, not apples to oranges. 
There are loads of farms and rural areas between London and Norfolk!!! There are none in the 90 mile stretch between NY and Philly -- just contiguous, fully populated suburban towns.

You statements comparing NY and London transportation networks are equally unfounded. How many times have you taken Metro North, NJ Transit or the LIRR and where did you take them to? My guess is never. By contrast, I have travelled the rail network in every location from London and can tell you that it's no better than NY's (and no faster). Horrific transport problems are endemic in England!


----------



## Sitback (Nov 1, 2004)

MikeHunt said:


> That photo shows Manhattan and parks on the Jersey shore and on Randalls Island. As I noted, London is no denser than Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx, Newark, Jersey City, etc.


Brooklyn maybe but as for the rest you're having a massive laugh. I've stayed 6 months in New York and after realising the closing you into the massive city effect the streets of NY give due the the valley like skyscraper lined streets is nothing more then an illusion. Driving around the city it is obvious that it's so much smaller in size. And North London is loads more dense then Jersey City, Queens and the Bronx.


----------



## Sitback (Nov 1, 2004)

A42251 said:


> NYC has more people than London, in half the land area. Thats what matters.


Why does it matter? It doesn't have that many more people for one. And I'd rather have a big house with a nice garden more space to move around then live in a shabby apartment, boxed in like a load of rats on top of each other.


----------



## I'mBack (Jan 15, 2005)

MikeHunt said:


> Every "official figure" that I've ever seen says that the London metro has about 12M people.


That's roughly the same figure I found when I search for "London's MA"  .... the only 18M figure is the one from the GLA, which apparently doesnt define geographically this area..... maybe that's why no one knows the limits of this area???


----------



## I'mBack (Jan 15, 2005)

nick-taylor said:


> Now I can't point to you on a map exactly where the London metro area[region] goes or what shape or form it takes,


how it comes you dont know how big is the London's Metro Region? (not area??) I thought you were "the" expert of London's metro area?


----------



## mad_nick (May 13, 2004)

Sitback said:


> Brooklyn maybe but as for the rest you're having a massive laugh. I've stayed 6 months in New York and after realising the closing you into the massive city effect the streets of NY give due the the valley like skyscraper lined streets is nothing more then an illusion. Driving around the city it is obvious that it's so much smaller in size. And North London is loads more dense then Jersey City, Queens and the Bronx.


Jersey City: 16,000 ppsm (though it should be noted that as much as a third of JC's area is part of the meadowlands)
Bronx: 31,000 ppsm
Queens: 20,000 ppsm (including large areas of low density (around 10,000 ppsm) in eastern Queens)

There is only one borough in London that's denser than the Bronx, Kensington & Chelsea (34000 ppsm), and it has a population of 159,000, far smaller than the Bronx (1.3 million).

There are 8 boroughs denser than Queens (all far smaller populations and smaller areas, western Queens easily beats all of them)

There are 13 boroughs denser than Jersey City, though as I said, a large part of JC is part of the meadowlands. And JC isn't even in the city either, so it's not included in NY's 8 million.

http://factfinder.census.gov/servle...05000US34003&-format=&-_lang=en&-show_geoid=Y
http://www.demographia.com/dmlonpop.htm


----------



## elliott (Sep 23, 2002)

MikeHunt said:


> There are loads of farms and rural areas between London and Norfolk!!! There are none in the 90 mile stretch between NY and Philly -- just contiguous, fully populated suburban towns.


And why is that a good thing, most people in Britain and Europe like breaks in the urban flow like forests, meadows and farm land. I wouldn't like to see constant flows of suburban Bellway/Barratt/Wimpey/Taylor Woodrow (take your pick on these British Developers) estates consuming beautiful historical landscapes.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

MikeHunt said:


> No, hick. I am extremely civil and never initiate rude comments. However, if a country jackass initiates rude comments, I strike back. Anyway, don't you have an evangelical session to go to?


I think the jury has spoken. How many people have called you a troll on this thread alone, let alone others? 

You've been banned before, and maybe you'll be banned again. It's not for your civil and intelligent behavior. When it happens you'll probably blame others, as people like you often do. 

Interesting that you base your insults on where people live. Apparently no Seattle forumers are allowed to question you? What about the other 90% of forumers who are from cities smaller than New York? I suppose they're all hicks too. No wonder people don't like you or respect you.


----------



## Butcher (Dec 13, 2004)

MikeHunt said:


> It's not the end of story because, once again, no one is saying what this area consists of. My guess is that it includes places like Cornwall and Devon that are not part of the London metro area. They are further from London than Philly is from NY, and there are not contiguous, fully populated areas between London and Cornwall (unlike London and Philly). There are farms between London and Cornwall. There are none between NY and Philly.
> 
> Greater London and the surrounding counties have a maximum population of about 14M.


I doubt it. Lets say that in the 32 London buroughs, there are 7.5 million people(approx.). The 5 NYC buroughs, which are equivalent to the 32 in London, has 8 million people. Why is it so surprising that the London metro area would have 18 million people and the NYC metro area has 22 million people.


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

MikeHunt said:


> I read quite well. You on the other hand do not. Moreover, your limited intellect is readily apparent. Every "official figure" that I've ever seen says that the London metro has about 12M people. I believe that the southern third of England has 18M, but Dorsett and other such counties are not part of the London metro area. I've asked you repeatedly, and yet you refuse to answer, what areas are included in the 18M figure.
> 
> You also refer (brainlessly, as usual) to Insee. If Insee adds 5M to the London metro (from the 13M that every other entity concludes that it has), how many people would the Insee method claim that NY has: 35M?


MikeHunt. Please explain where and how you define the 13million area as an "official" MA. Did any government department issue this figure? No. 

One thing you should be aware of, considering you have lived in other country's around the world, is that different country's don't always do things the same way. In this case, Britain does not have any national standards for metropolitan area's. 

You also have to realize, that until recently, the term "metropolitan area" refered to something completely different in each country. Some country's used it to define the urban area, others the urban area and some close "almost" connected towns. The U.S. defines it by commuter percentages. 

Today, it is becoming more common to define a metropolitan area by commuter percentages. This makes a vast difference to using other criteria. 

Currently, there is only one "official" definition in the U.K. by a government source, and that is the new London 18million area. This is the closest definition using simular criteria for U.S. cities (although more closely linked to the way the INSEE calculate their figures)

You are more than free to use the pre-government release, non official figure of 13million, but you have to accept that this is not based on commuter percentages like the U.S. model. If you want to compare two cities together, you must use as similar criteria for both cities. Would you measure the height of one man in boots, and the other man in barefeet?


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

MikeHunt said:


> Once again, Nick, what does this "region" consist of? It does not consist of Greater London and the Home Counties, as their population equals about 14M. As I said, if you include all of Southern England including places like Devon, then I can see the 18M figure for that "region". However, Devon is not part of the London metro.


MikeHunt. Once again, I will tell you that this does not include the counties as far as Devon. 

Once again I will point out that if you just up the East and South East it is already 21million people and that does not extend as far as Devon

Once again I will tell you it covers an area of approx 22,000km"

Once again, I will point out that this is still smaller than New York's CMSA of 27,000km²

Once again I will point out the differences between the U.S. and U.K. is that the U.S. includes entire counties and the U.K. doesn't.

and Once again, I will inform you that if you added the population up around 22,000km² surrounding London, not including all entire counties, and that you'll find the bulk of the population is closer to London in many of the counties, you will find that the 18million population is correct.

Why do you ignore these comments and make up such mad statements that one needs to reach Devon to encompass an 18million area?


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

I'mBack said:


> That's roughly the same figure I found when I search for "London's MA"  .... the only 18M figure is the one from the GLA, which apparently doesnt define geographically this area..... maybe that's why no one knows the limits of this area???


They do define it, it's just not printed in that document that is often used here. That is one document and not all of the information printed by the GLA on the matter.

If you write to the GLA, they will post you more information. It's not top secret, it's public domain.


----------



## I'mBack (Jan 15, 2005)

Justme said:


> They do define it, it's just not printed in that document that is often used here. That is one document and not all of the information printed by the GLA on the matter.
> 
> If you write to the GLA, they will post you more information. It's not top secret, it's public domain.





Justme said:


> MikeHunt. Once again, I will tell you that this does not include the counties as far as Devon.
> (...)
> Once again I will tell you it covers an area of approx 22,000km"
> (...)
> and Once again, I will inform you that if you added the population up around 22,000km² surrounding London, not including all entire counties, and that you'll find the bulk of the population is closer to London in many of the counties, you will find that the 18million population is correct.


Well, it's not top secret, but it seems no one knows how big this Metropolitan region is???? I wouldn't say it's of "public domain" as .... no one knows about it! 

You keep posting data as "22,000km²" and claiming counties as devon are not included.... so how it comes you don't know exactly which counties are included and which are not?? 

It seems to me, you and other forumers, just accept what GLA claims (18M) but you haven't bothered to find out what actually this area include.....


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

I'mBack said:


> Well, it's not top secret, but it seems no one knows how big this Metropolitan region is???? I wouldn't say it's of "public domain" as .... no one knows about it!
> 
> You keep posting data as "22,000km²" and claiming counties as devon are not included.... so how it comes you don't know exactly which counties are included and which are not??
> 
> It seems to me, you and other forumers, just accept what GLA claims (18M) but you haven't bothered to find out what actually this area include.....


I do know, and I even listed them here, and the partial counties (or was it in a different thread) Anyway, I even listed the half counties. But why should I keep repeating myself?

You don't even need to write to the GLA to get this info. Get the national statistics, and go through every single sub area of a county surrounding London, add their area’s and populations up on two tables, stop when you reach 22,000km² and see how big the population is, you’d find at 2004 estimates it’s around 18million.

It takes time, but it’s not hard to do. You just have to remember you shouldn’t add entire counties up, as that increases the area significantly - well above 22,000km², and the population moderately (the population thins out the further you go from London). The GLA hasn’t used “entire counties”. The GLA isn’t in the U.S.

Keep in mind, that in 1998, there was 12.2million people in 7,200km² around London link 
of which 4,147km² was considered "urban" link

In 2004 estimates that would be even larger.

Now, you add another 15,000km² around that to increase the population by another 5 or so million people.

The mathmatics do indeed work out.


----------



## I'mBack (Jan 15, 2005)

Justme said:


> go through every single sub area of a county surrounding London, add their area’s and populations up on two tables, stop when you reach 22,000km² and see how big the population is, ...


Not really a method a statistic bureau would use, isn't it...??


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

I'mBack said:


> Not really a method a statistic bureau would use, isn't it...??


This is entirely true if trying to calculate the actually metropolitan area, as this would be based on commuter percentages.

However, this isn't the question here. What we are discussing is "how is it possible to have 18million people in 22,000km²". MikeHunt is saying one would need to cover something like 70,000km² to reach 18million.

However, to answer the question about the population in 22,000km² around London, all one needs to do is to add up the subregions in each county surround the GLC. It does take a lot of time, but life is always dull with no work.


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

I think you people are mixing up what a metro region is, do you mean continuous build up? If used in this sense then I don't think metro london's population would be over 14M, but if you mean a region whose's economy is totaly dependant on London's, where people comute to London etc, then it might be 18M no?


----------



## Sitback (Nov 1, 2004)

Now I know NY is dense, but London is vast. *cool*


----------



## Sitback (Nov 1, 2004)

And that's just a bit of London.


----------



## nick_taylor (Mar 7, 2003)

MikeHunt said:


> Finally, someone has identified the mystery area!!!! However, Norfolk, Suffolk and the Isle of Wight (let alone all of Hampshire and Cambridgshire) are not part of the London metro! You can say so if you want to, but I can say that Baltimore (let alone) Philadelphia is part of the NY metro and that it has 50M people. Indeed, let compares apples to apples, not apples to oranges.
> There are loads of farms and rural areas between London and Norfolk!!! There are none in the 90 mile stretch between NY and Philly -- just contiguous, fully populated suburban towns.


It wasn't a mystery area - its been noted several times in this thread already! All I did was posted the area and populations of East, South-East and Greater London....not the area and population of the metro of London which I stated I or nobody knows the exact shape or form of. Now if you had read my post (and others) before replying, you would have noted that nobody here knows exactly the model of what the metro looks like because it isn't based upon counties like CMA's are in the US (. This is a different model, which has a different methodology to the INSEE method where 40% was the figure used to define the area of London at 17mn. 1mn less than what the GLA have found out.

Remember London's metro area covers an area of 22,000km², New Yorks covers 27,000km² with only 4mn more people. The entire Greater London, East + South-East England is towards 40,000km². Now if you can't see the difference there then I seriously question now whether you are actually a litigation lawyer (or a serious flawed one). Yet you continue to argue somehow that all of Hampshire and other counties are somehow included within the metropolitan area of London WHEN THEY ARE NOT, because the area would be 40,000km² and the population at 21mn.

Also Philadelphia is *NOT* part of New York's CMA. Now you appear to lack knowledge of not only London, but New York, so let us go through this. New York has a metropolitan area which is calculated by the US Census Office under the MSA method with a population of 21.199,865 (2000).


Philadelphia has its OWN metro under the title of the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania-Atlantic City, New Jersey-Wilmington, Delaware CMA which has its own population of 5,687,147 (2000). Baltimore's CMA population is 2,552,994 (2000). Also I don't commend your fact sourcing skills as the combined New York-Philadelphia-Baltimore multi-metro *does not* add up to 50mn, infact as of 2000 such a multi-metro covering upwards of 40,000km² has a population of 29,440,006. Maybe the other 20,559,994 people from this New York-Philadelphia-Baltimore multi-metro have left the scene much like your brain has :laugh:






MikeHunt said:


> You statements comparing NY and London transportation networks are equally unfounded. How many times have you taken Metro North, NJ Transit or the LIRR and where did you take them to? My guess is never. By contrast, I have travelled the rail network in every location from London and can tell you that it's no better than NY's (and no faster). Horrific transport problems are endemic in England!


Actually I have riden on MNR, I know that because I actually had to use the platforms at Grand Central and what a state they were - for what is meant to be one of the most beautiful stations in the world, the platforms could have been found in some cold-war bunker - they are that bad. Its a total contrast to the concourses above. Then there is Penn, what a lovely station that is - a bit like Euston, yet more cramped and resembles a rabbit hutch. I can't name many stations that would make something like Euston nice...Penn manages that though. Then again this is one thing Americans have to learn: how to build a station that doesn't cut corners and that includes the actual train platforms where the trains come in. One interesting destination I have been to though if your interested was to Hicksville on the LIRR. I was with a few of my friends and the place had to be seen just for the name.

I also somehow doubt you took the train in every location in London, not even I've managed to cover 1/2 of the lines that eminate from London. Also there is a clear difference between the UK and US, and this is the fact that the UK actually has a wide-spread public transportation system and even though its not the best in the world, its by far more efficient, faster, safer, cleaner and more modern than Amtrak and all the other transport authority lines. 

Firstly HSR - New York has a tilting train system as you might be aware called Acela. Unfortunately for New York and all the other cities on the North-Eastern corridor, it's currently being over-hauled because the breaks can't handle the stupid amount of weight that is being place upon them. The reason: with all passenger trainstock in the US, if it shares tracks with freight trains the weight of the train has to be drastically increased which ironically has caused worse accidents (because its slower to stop) and reduced acceleration and top speeds. 

London and its metro area though actually has 300kph HSR trains (no trains exist at this speed in the US and probably never will), going by the name of Eurostar - you might have heard of/used it. They are over 400m long, ie nearly 0.5km long and amongst the longest trains in the world (only Shinkansen are longer which I have travelled in). London also has a tilting system going along the lines of Acela, called Virgin Pendolino's. These are trains that actually tilt, work along fully-electrified lines without speed restrictions, have modern interiors and resemble something you might find in Japan. I've yet to find such a heavy rail train in the US that looks like it could be found in Japan.


*Virgin Pendolino Rolling Stock*




































If I remember with Acela, there were a few LED signs, but they were more basic and located within the trains, much like the rolling stock in and around London. This moves on to my second point with rail stock, London and its metro have more trains in service than any other city on the planet bar only Tokyo. Now when I come and go to/from London Waterloo and Portsmouth I board Siemen's latest trains (that unfortuantely are too light for the US railroads), these trains are similar to Acela Express except they actually run, are newer, more numerous (300 compared to 20 Acela trains ) and even have plugs for charging laptops and mobile phones - something I haven't seen on any US train. Also the effort put into designing these trains shows through and they don't resemble steel coffins with wheels like the MNR and LIRR adhere to.

*South-West Trains Rolling Stock*





































Thirdly London and the surrounding area is moving towards a modern system where contactless cards such as Oyster are the norm across the tube, railways, trams, buses and water taxis. I don't even think New York is moving towards implementing such a modern system. And how could I forget Electronic Display Boards, within the actual city proper of London there are 300 stations that have this modern convenience. All of New York City I believe has 4. The figure for London and its metro area of 18mn would rise even further considering the London + London Metro station count is somewhere around 1,200 stations - yes that amount of stations. New York altogetherhas around 900 for what is a metro area with a larger population. And to top off this point, there are no heavy rail stations within New York or its metro area that have platform screen doors. These are modern installations used to stop people falling on the tracks and nly the light-rail systems in place on the Airtrack networks have these and then London has the same system at its airports. have a heavy rail station with platform screen doors!

Fourthly the network is more efficiently organised with dedicated express train services to London Heathrow, London Gatwick and London Stansted Airports - no airport in New York has this. London ironically has more express lines than London, its just that people only think of London and the Underground (even then there are express lines). Then there are the maps where you have the network all put together comprehensively with London and then a larger map showing all the surrounding (metro area) services. This is odd, because even though the rail network has over a dozen rail operators, it still manages to keep it comprehensive. You have to consult 5 maps just to see the city and metro area heavy rail services (NYC Subway, LIRR, MNR, Staten Island + NJ Transit) of New York and its metro - ridiculous. There there is the lack of numerous automated lines, unlike with London. 

Lastly other than the tram network which so happens to be larger than anything available in New York (or non-existance), London is planning to expand the network to close to 400 stops making it one of the largest tram networks in the world. New York I believe is still pondering over a 42nd Tram circle and then there is the likes of the 2nd line....all talk with New York and very little construction, unlike London with a HSR line being built, various medium-rail extensions, infact there are within the city proper of London, some 20 stations being built - ie these are non-interchange stations (of which there are around another 20 u/c). For New York I believe its a nice round figure of zero.

Now if it came down to a comparison to see which system was more like Tokyo's (which is considered the finest in the world), it would most likely be London. A brief recap would be: the train stock is newer and more modern, the stations clearner, modern, safer and more numerous, the network is just simply larger, more punctual, faster and efficient. New York and the US as a whole has a long way to go. Many other forumers who have actually used both networks would note this. Skyscrapers: New York; Transport: London. 

I begin to see the irony though - you accusing me of literally being retarded, but at the same time proving your own post right.......for yourself because you don't read and don't actually do any work to understand the subject at hand. Infact look at that, he's gone and got himself brigged :laugh:


----------



## I'mBack (Jan 15, 2005)

Justme said:


> However, this isn't the question here. What we are discussing is "how is it possible to have 18million people in 22,000km²".





MikeHunt said:


> once again, no one is saying what this area consists of.


yes, but my question is "WHAT DOES THIS AREA OF 22,000km² INCLUDE??" I think this was as well one of MikeHun's question, which no one has replied yet!...?? :|


----------



## I'mBack (Jan 15, 2005)

nick-taylor said:


> This region which would equate to being a metro area or CMA in the US but under different terms............
> 
> *Greater London (City Proper)*
> 7,172,036 - 1,579km²
> ...


So, this would mean that 18M of people live in area of 22,000km², and the 2,5M live in area of less than ..... 18,000km²???

btw, I think you hv "swapped" the figures:...  :

East England 
5,388,154 - 19,120km²

South East England 
8,000,550 - 19,096km²



nick-taylor said:


> It wasn't a mystery area - its been noted several times in this thread already! (....)I or nobody knows the exact shape or form of. Now if you had read my post (and others) before replying, you would have noted that nobody here knows exactly the model of what the metro looks like because it isn't based upon counties like CMA's are in the US


"It's not a mystery area"??? So how it comes no one knows excatly the boundaries of this area??? I thought it was an "official" figure from the GLA...? So, they have just given a figure of 18M without define the actual boundaries of this Metropolitan Region!?!? :|


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2005)

I'mBack said:


> "It's not a mystery area"??? So how it comes no one knows excatly the boundaries of this area??? I thought it was an "official" figure from the GLA...? So, they have just given a figure of 18M without define the actual boundaries of this Metropolitan Region!?!? :|


New York's metro is defined by the counties so a border can easily be drawn around the edges of the counties. London's metro, however, is a statistical boundary based on commuter flows and the like and so is liable to change on a daily basis.


----------



## nick_taylor (Mar 7, 2003)

I'mBack said:


> So, this would mean that 18M of people live in area of 22,000km², and the 2,5M live in area of less than ..... 18,000km²???
> 
> btw, I think you hv "swapped" the figures:...  :


A simple error, but the combined total is the point here - the metro area does not include all of South East England and East England

Now what you have to note is that those 2.5mn odd people are indeed located within the extreme rural areas of the South East + East England. The metro area covers the large urban areas which are well connected by mass-transportation lines. What you are thinking is that there should be a more equal spread of people, ie more people in the remaining area not within the metro, but this is simply not the case. The UK is not gentle sprawl, its rural areas with pockets of urbanity dotted all across the landscape. It is these urban areas that are well connected to London and it is these urban areas that are connected into the London metro area. Hence a high population, but not covering vast extremities of area. Its not exactly something hard to imagine.





I'm Back said:


> "It's not a mystery area"??? So how it comes no one knows excatly the boundaries of this area??? I thought it was an "official" figure from the GLA...? So, they have just given a figure of 18M without define the actual boundaries of this Metropolitan Region!?!? :|


Its not a mystery area because:
a) We know the coverage area is 22,000km²
b) The population is at 18mn

What we do not know is the exact shape of the metro area - its not concentric circles, but more likely a morphological along the main transport corridors (motorways, railway lines, etc) where the majority of the population live. Now someone can do the research into the exact boundaries of the metro area, but I really don't have the time to undertake such a study and as EarlyBird has just stated - its not constant, unlike the county borders in the US used to define the MSA's. Its the same for the INSEE method used on Paris.


----------



## I'mBack (Jan 15, 2005)

nick-taylor said:


> Its not a mystery area because:
> a) We know the coverage area is 22,000km²
> b) The population is at 18mn
> 
> What we do not know is the exact shape of the metro area - its not concentric circles, but more likely a morphological along the main transport corridors (motorways, railway lines, etc) where the majority of the population live. Now someone can do the research into the exact boundaries of the metro area, but I really don't have the time to undertake such a study and as EarlyBird has just stated - its not constant, unlike the county borders in the US used to define the MSA's. Its the same for the INSEE method used on Paris.



So, if this 18M region is mostly because some just the urban areas along the "main corridors" have been selected, then you cant compare London's MA with NY's. I'm sure if NY's MA would use the same methond, then the km² would be much smaller and "loosing" only very few inhabitants...(???) --> London's area from 40,000km² down to 22,000km², but from 20,5M down to 18M! 

Well INSEE does define very precisely Paris'MA (even the evolution from 1990 to 1999):

http://www.insee.fr/fr/insee_regions/idf/rfc/docs/alap196.pdf

http://www.iaurif.org/fr/savoirfaire/nr_sdrif/pdf/nr_333.pdf


----------



## I'mBack (Jan 15, 2005)

^ Well using the same methond, NY's MA would be around 18/19M in an area of "only" 14,000/15,000km²....??


----------



## nick_taylor (Mar 7, 2003)

I'mBack said:


> ^ Well using the same methond, NY's MA would be around 18/19M in an area of "only" 14,000/15,000km²....??


How did you come to that conclusion? Look London has a smaller metro area (-5,000km²) than New York's with a smaller popualtion (-3mn).


What New York's metro includes is the urban + rural areas within the county boundaries. London's metro I suspect doesn't include all the rural areas of all the countries surrounding London. What you are thinking is that rural areas are heavily populated and integrated well into London which they aren't, hence why there is a smaller population and a larger area. I don't quite get what is so complicated about this and even though I don't know the exact boundaries of the metro area of London, we know that it covers 22,000km² and has a population of 18mn. And this is using a methodology that is stricter than CMA's and with less area than New York's. 

In the end until someone actually does a like-for-like comparison either with CMA's or the methodology used on London for New York, the closest comparison we will get is the 27,000km² + 21mn New York metro and 22,000km² + 18mn London metro. Its not an apples to orange comparison, but a pink lady apple and bramley apple comparison.


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

There is a map of the London metro. The 17 million INSEE one that is. Manuel posted it some time ago. Can't find it because the thread probably got pruned.

btw, if anyone is wondering why MikeHunt isn't responding...it's because he is brigged for his insulting comments...


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

Found it!
I had it saved on my computer somewhere...


----------



## I'mBack (Jan 15, 2005)

nick-taylor said:


> What you are thinking is that rural areas are heavily populated and integrated well into London which they aren't, hence why there is a smaller population and a larger area.


Not at the all, never claimed that ^ .

I was just trying to give an estimate of the NY's MA if we were just "selecting" the most urban areas along the "main corridors".


----------



## I'mBack (Jan 15, 2005)

SHiRO said:


> btw, if anyone is wondering why MikeHunt isn't responding...it's because he is brigged for his insulting comments...


"insulting comments"?? or just trying to get rid of him because asking too many questions??


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

:|


----------



## I'mBack (Jan 15, 2005)

SHiRO said:


> Found it!
> I had it saved on my computer somewhere...


Finally a map!! :banana:

But I dont think this one is the same the GLA talks about....?? (is it jsut the area within the black line??)

If so, clearly in this map, all the following counties are included in the MA:

Greater London 7,379,825	1580km²
Berkshire 803,657 1262km²
Buckinghamshire 693,675 1874 km²
Surrey 1,064,575 1663 km²
Essex 1,629,647 3670km² 
Hertfordshire 1,040,925 1643km² 
Bedfordshire 573,765 1192km²

Total: 13,184M /*16554*km²

Still according to this map, the most of Kent (3736km² ), West Sussex (1,991 km²) and East Sussex (1792km²) are part of this MA; So adding the most of these counties, the areas in consideration goes well over the 22,000km² indicated by the GLA...?!?

And to this, we should add as well smaller parts of Hampshire, Oxfordshire, Cambridge, Hampshire...... which will take the total km² even further away from the 22,000km² stated by the GLA.


----------



## Effer (Jun 9, 2005)

SHiRO said:


> Found it!
> I had it saved on my computer somewhere...


 :cheers:


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

I think I clearly stated this was the 17 million INSEE one...


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

oh my god... a map!


----------

