# How many 1 million(+) cities does your country have?



## null (Dec 11, 2002)

*China: 122 (as of 2008, mainland only)*


----------



## girlicious_likeme (Jun 12, 2008)

Canada:

*By metro area: 6*
Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Ottawa, Calgary, Edmonton

*By civic boundary: 3*
Toronto, Montreal, Calgary


----------



## WeimieLvr (May 26, 2008)

For China I counted 53 by urban area, and 87 by administrative area. Maybe it's old information...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China_by_population

U.S. cities with populations over 1 million: 10 by city limits...43 by metro area.


----------



## deranged (Jan 22, 2009)

*AUSTRALIA* - *Metro area - 5*

Sydney (4.4M), Melbourne (3.9M), Brisbane (1.9M), Perth (1.6M), Adelaide (1.2M)

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/DetailsPage/3218.02007-08?OpenDocument (2008 est)


----------



## aleochi (Jun 16, 2008)

*Brazil:*

By metro area: *18* 

The five biggest metropolian areas:
São Paulo: 19.223.897
Rio de Janeiro: 11.571.617
Belo Horizonte: 5.397.438
Porto Alegre: 4.063.886
Salvador: 3.967.902

--

Cities over than 1 million: *14*
Biggest brazilian cities:

São Paulo (11.037.593)
Rio de Janeiro (6.186.710)
Salvador (2.998.056)
Brasilia DC (2.606.885)
Fortaleza (2.505.552)


----------



## Unsing (Apr 15, 2006)

Japan:

*By city proper: 12*

Tokyo, Yokohama, Osaka, Nagoya, Sapporo, Kobe, Kyoto, Fukuoka, Kawasaki, Saitama, Hiroshima, Sendai

For the past, Kitakyushu had over one million people until 2002.


*By metro area: 13*

Tokyo, Osaka, Nagoya, Fukuoka, Sapporo, Sendai, Hiroshima, Okayama, Kumamoto, Shizuoka, Niigata, Hamamatsu, Kagoshima


----------



## null (Dec 11, 2002)

WeimieLvr said:


> For China I counted 53 by urban area, and 87 by administrative area. Maybe it's old information...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China_by_population
> 
> U.S. cities with populations over 1 million: 10 by city limits...43 by metro area.


Yes, wiki's data is pretty outdated.

PS, China may have 400+ 1 million cities by administrative area.


----------



## jayo (Aug 30, 2007)

By Metro Area, the Uk has London,Birmingham,Manchester,Leeds,Glasgow,Newcastle,Liverpool (I think) - Which is 7.

By Civic Boundry the Uk has two. London & Birmingham.


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre (Aug 3, 2003)

null said:


> Yes, wiki's data is pretty outdated.
> 
> *PS, China may have 400+ 1 million cities by administrative area*.


Yikes! hno:


----------



## alekssa1 (Jan 29, 2009)

Russia

within city limit - 11-13










metro area - 20-21


----------



## Bau (Jun 24, 2006)

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Italy_by_population) Italy have only two cities with +1 million.

 

Rome 2.7M
Milan 1.3M

*By the way, by metropolitan area we can found 9 cities* (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_metropolitana):
Milano (Milan) 7M
Napoli (Naples) 4.4M
Roma (Rome) 3.8M
Venezia (Venice) 3.2M
Torino (Turin) 1.7M
Firenze (Florence) 1.5M
Genova (Genoa) 1.4M
Palermo 1M
Bari 1M


----------



## kato2k8 (May 4, 2008)

Germany: 4 by city limits, 11-15 by immediate metro area depending on definition


----------



## dnobsemajdnob (Jan 29, 2009)

Please, Americans, don't use metros. For you, the NY metro is the entire east coast and the LA metro is like 500 miles long.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

Germany:

Cities (4): Berlin, Hamburg, München, Köln

Urban areas(4+8): Frankfurt, Stuttgart, Nürnberg, Düsseldorf, Ruhr, Hannover, Bremen, Mannheim


----------



## deranged (Jan 22, 2009)

dnobsemajdnob said:


> Please, Americans, don't use metros. For you, the NY metro is the entire east coast and the LA metro is like 500 miles long.


Just a heads-up to anyone intending to refute that quote, don't bother - dnob is known for inane trolling in the Citytalk section.
While the above post is obviously a deliberate exaggeration, some of its serious posts are worthy of a few laughs...


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

Bau said:


> Venezia (Venice) 3.2M


Venice 3.2 million. Yeah, why not 20 million. :crazy:

Some people don't seem to understand that the goal here is not to post inflated chauvinistic information, but credible information that helps everybody become more knowledgeable.


----------



## Bau (Jun 24, 2006)

You are right, but i was only posting some data found on wiki. The trouble is that the metropolitan area of venice is like 6.680 km2. These data, the definition and the classification are made by OCSE http://www.oecd.org


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

^^No, let me correct this: the Wikipedia article claims the data come from OECD, but no link is given, so they could as well have made it up.


----------



## deranged (Jan 22, 2009)

PS. I didn't include the city proper stats for Australia, because this is where things become murky.

The council areas (LGAs) of the cities of Sydney, Melbourne, Perth and Adelaide cover only a very small part of their metro areas - roughly only their respective CBDs. As can be seen in the first .xls link in this source, their populations are between 1-4% (!!) of their respective metro populations. The exception is Brisbane, whose LGA covers a majority of its metropolitan area.

In many countries, although a list of largest cities would differ considerably from a list of largest metropolitan areas, there would still usually be significant correlation overall. The latter feature is not the case with Australia, where a ranking of council areas by population is absolutely meaningless. For example, it would be beyond idiotic to claim that Perth is the 246th-largest city in Australia.


----------



## anakngpasig (Jul 29, 2005)

Philippines:

Metro Areas - 3
Cities - 4


----------



## westender (Mar 17, 2007)

deranged said:


> PS. I didn't include the city proper stats for Australia, because this is where things become murky.
> 
> The council areas (LGAs) of the cities of Sydney, Melbourne, Perth and Adelaide cover only a very small part of their metro areas - roughly only their respective CBDs. As can be seen in the first .xls link in this source, their populations are between 1-4% (!!) of their respective metro populations. The exception is Brisbane, whose LGA covers a majority of its metropolitan area.
> 
> In many countries, although a list of largest cities would differ considerably from a list of largest metropolitan areas, there would still usually be significant correlation overall.



I totally agree that is so true. It always gets me with posts here and other threads as well as wikipedia info on a lot of cities talk about city limits, metro areas, urban areas and so on.

Sydney advertises it's 'Statistical Area' population to try and make its self sound as big as it possibly can be. Those who know Sydney would understand the urban area is smaller than the statistical area and has a population minus those living in the less densley populated sourounding areas.


----------



## Andres_RoCa (Mar 28, 2007)

Venezuela has 7 by metro area, as far as I know and by old flawed statistical measurements.


----------



## Jamuary (Jul 11, 2009)

Poland 

name city metro area 
Warsaw 1.9 mln 2.9mln
Silesia ? 3.1mln
Tricity 1.2mln 1.9mln
Krakow 0.850 1.85mln
Łódż 0.750 1.8mln
Wrocław 0.700 1.6mln


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

dnobsemajdnob said:


> NY has about 19m in a much smaller area than this. Certain counties, such as Orange and Dutchess Couties, are included in the 30,685 km² figure. These counties (and several others on the fringe of the NY area) are geographically enormous and contribute significantly to the land area figure, but they're very sparsely populated and don't contribute much to the population figure.


The New York MSA strictly speaking has 19.0 million inhabitants spread over 17,420 km². That's still a larger surface than the Paris metro area, or any other European metro area for that matter. Again, it's not surprising given that the US Census Bureau uses a lower commuting thresholds to define its metropolitan areas than the commuting thresholds used in Europe.


----------



## dnobsemajdnob (Jan 29, 2009)

As I stated, if one were to draw a line 100 km in any direction from the center of Manhattan, it has a much larger and more dense population than any city in Europe and practically any city anywhere excluding Asian ones. This is even more pronounced if a 50 or 60 km radius is used.


----------



## WeimieLvr (May 26, 2008)

dnobsemajdnob said:


> As I stated, if one were to draw a line 100 km in any direction from the center of Manhattan, it has a much larger and more dense population than any city in Europe and practically any city anywhere excluding Asian ones. This is even more pronounced if a 50 or 60 km radius is used.


You may have to draw a picture...it's hard for some people to understand.


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

dnobsemajdnob said:


> As I stated, if one were to draw a line 100 km in any direction from the center of Manhattan, it has a much larger and more dense population than any city in Europe


I don't think so. If you draw a line 100 km in any direction from the city of Nijmegen (Nimègue) in the Netherlands, you have most likely more inhabitants than in the 100 km around Manhattan.


----------



## dnobsemajdnob (Jan 29, 2009)

brisavoine said:


> I don't think so. If you draw a line 100 km in any direction from the city of Nijmegen (Nimègue) in the Netherlands, you have most likely more inhabitants than in the 100 km around Manhattan.


There are 18 m people around that city? If so, it would be the biggest in Europe.


----------



## philadweller (Oct 30, 2003)

*US cities with 1 million or more*

1 New York City 8,363,710
2 Los Angeles 3,833,995
3 Chicago 2,853,114
4 Houston 2,242,193
5 Phoenix 1,567,924
6 Philadelphia 1,447,395
7 San Antonio 1,351,305
8 Dallas 1,279,910
9 San Diego 1,279,329

Of these cities NYC, Chicago, Philadelphia and LA have the highest downtown population and are the only 4 on the list which actually have subways. The rest of the cities although city proper populations are a mixture of urban density and a substantial amount of sprawl with some light rail except for San Antonio. 

Philadelphia may be number 6 but is more of a classical, walkable, dense city than mostly suburban Houston and Phoenix.
LA is definitely a hybrid but far more dense than Houston or Dallas. Downtown LA is really filling up faster than the other sunbelt cities. San Diego and Dallas too have come a long way. San Antonio has a big population but a small downtown, so does Phoenix.
There is no rhyme or reason for the development of US cites. They mostly lack a master plan and its each city for itself. Fortunately many cities in the east and midwest were well developed before the invention of the automobile.


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

dnobsemajdnob said:


> There are 18 m people around that city? If so, it would be the biggest in Europe.


Within 100 km of Nijmegen you've got the Ruhr and the Randstad, plus very dense territories in between.


----------



## WeimieLvr (May 26, 2008)

philadweller said:


> 1 New York City 8,363,710
> 2 Los Angeles 3,833,995
> 3 Chicago 2,853,114
> 4 Houston 2,242,193
> ...



You need to add San Jose to your list of cities over 1 million - there are 10 in the U.S. You also need to consult some references for the downtown populations before making such statements like you did above...and only include the actual downtown areas when making such a comparison.

Actually, Atlanta is densifying faster than other "sunbelt" cities...according to this report on infill development: http://www.newgeography.com/content/00852-special-report-infill-us-urban-areas

Nobody really cares about your love affair with Philadelphia or the way you needlessly promote it. This thread topic isn't "How did U.S. cities develop?" or anything similar.


----------



## dnobsemajdnob (Jan 29, 2009)

brisavoine said:


> Within 100 km of Nijmegen you've got the Ruhr and the Randstad, plus very dense territories in between.


That's interesting. It's therefore a larger area than London, Paris, Rome, Madrid, etc.

Can you post some photos?

Thanks


----------



## philadweller (Oct 30, 2003)

"Nobody really cares about your love affair with Philadelphia or the way you needlessly promote it. This thread topic isn't "How did U.S. cities develop?" or anything similar."

I do not needlessly promote Philadelphia anymore than you needlessly promote Atlanta. I agree with what you say about Atlanta. Midtown has completely transformed itself. Why do always have a bitterness to me?

From Wikipedia for downtown (center city Philadelphia).
"Center City is the "downtown" and Central Business District of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. Its 2005 population of 88,000 makes it the third most populous downtown in the United States."

"The mean travel time to work was 32.0 minutes for workers 16 years of age and older. Residents of Center City, however, had much shorter commutes. Center City has the third largest downtown residential population in the country, and most walk to work."


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

dnobsemajdnob said:


> That's interesting. It's therefore a larger area than London, Paris, Rome, Madrid, etc.
> 
> Can you post some photos?


Some photos of what? Nijmegen is a small city. It just shows that taking a random 100 km circle can lead to some misleading results. If I take a 100 km circle around a small Bangladeshi village, I can find even more inhabitants than in Greater Tokyo, yet that doesn't make my Bangladeshi village a major megacity.

Anyway, that's Nijmegen, which was made famous in the days of Louis XIV because some important European treaties were signed there:










Nijmegen lies at the heart of the densest urban region in Europe.


----------



## kato2k8 (May 4, 2008)

dnobsemajdnob said:


> There are 18 m people around that city? If so, it would be the biggest in Europe.


It's not that hard in any of the Blue Banana to get to large volumes. I have 12.5 million people living within a 100-km circle from here in Heidelberg too, and it's not feeling really dense around here for Europe. He's off by one million though, by my estimate, because not the whole Randstad is within the 100 km circle. Depending on where exactly you put the circle, the below can go +- 200,000 easily.

Want it exactly? Within 100 km of Nijmegen, Netherlands:

3,201,632 in Gelderland and Utrecht/NL
3,010,016 in Noord- and Zuid-Holland/NL
1,465,416 in Flevoland and Overijssel/NL
2,981,712 in Noord-Brabant and Limburg/NL
_,538,349 in Belgium
5,856,389 in Northrhine-Westphalia/Germany
---------
17,053,514 total

(as estimated with a Google Earth circle and wiki)

Anyway - as suggested : It's a misleading result for a random 31,500 km² area on the planet.


----------



## dnobsemajdnob (Jan 29, 2009)

The Blue Banana is amazing.

These small cities that no one has ever really heard of have a greater concentration of people within a 100 km radius than London, Paris, Los Angeles, Beijing, etc. and they equal cities like NY, Mexico City, and Sao Paulo. That's amazing.

Although the villages in the Blue Banana have the same population within a 100 km radius as NY, it doesn't look very dense.


----------



## kato2k8 (May 4, 2008)

To be "fair" to NYC : The Tri-state Region with its 18.8 million people is considerably smaller than a 100-km circle - half as big, to be exact. It's a 100-km semi-circle. The same goes for Los Angeles.


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

WeimieLvr said:


> Nobody really cares about your love affair with Philadelphia or the way you needlessly promote it. .


You ever considered an attitude adjustment?


----------



## kingsdl76 (Sep 1, 2007)

brisavoine said:


> Yes, US metropolitan areas use a lower commuting threshold than French metropolitan areas, resulting in larger surface areas. It's even more true for the Combined Statistical Areas (CSA) where a threshold of less than 25% is used, and "local opinion" is considered too (I wonder how the US Census Bureau gathers "local opinion").
> 
> As a result the New York CSA has 22.2 million inhabitants spread over 30,685 km². The Los Angeles CSA has 17.8 million inhabitants spread over 87,944 km² (although a lot of it is uninhabited deserts and mountains of course). The Chicago CSA has 9.8 million inhabitants spread over 21,981 km². In comparison the Paris metropolitan area has 12.0 million inhabitants spread over only 14,518 km², because the commuting threshold used by the French statistical office is much higher. With a commuting threshold as low as the US CSAs, we could look for a "Paris CSA" having anywhere around 16 million inhabitants spread over 30,000 km² or so, but I don't think the concept of CSA makes much sense in dense Europe.
> 
> ...


----------



## kingsdl76 (Sep 1, 2007)

*Although I dislike America and Americans*, I think that the suggestion about the NY metro being sparsely populated is wrong. A 100 km radius from Manhattan yields millions more people than a 100 km radius around practically any city except maybe for some in Asia.[/QUOTE]


It must be quite a miserable existance to hate 310,000,000 people... what a vault of hate.

Nonetheless, your apparent miserable existance and comment brought me a nice laugh this evening.

Thank You... :cheers:


----------

