Growth of World Cities (1940-2010)

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

--------------------------- 2010 --------- 2000 ------ Growth %
Shanghai ----------- 47,252,965
Tokyo --------------- 42,607,376
São Paulo ----------- 28,064,344 --- 25,071,516 --- 11.9%
New York ----------- 23,154,211 --- 22,314,859 ----- 3.8%
London -------------- 21,796,256
Paris ----------------- 14,340,623

London is closing the gap against New York in a very fast pace. We might have a draw by 2020.

Thanks Yuri for the effort. I tried the same exercise, but only for 1000 sq miles (too lazy to do more). Was trying to compare the NYC population to the Moscow population at that size. But its interesting how much lower the NYC figure is. NJ really lowers the figure. North Jersey is dense, but central, and eastern Northern PA with its large land size for counties, and lower population give NYC a lower figure.

I'd be interested to see the stats at 5000 sq miles. Inner and outer rings.

Whats fueling the growth is Sao Paulo? Immigration or annexations?

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Thanks Yuri for the effort. I tried the same exercise, but only for 1000 sq miles (too lazy to do more). Was trying to compare the NYC population to the Moscow population at that size. But its interesting how much lower the NYC figure is. NJ really lowers the figure. North Jersey is dense, but central, and eastern Northern PA with its large land size for counties, and lower population give NYC a lower figure.

Thank you, Chris. Yes, very low densities in all those counties. They seem almost untouched by developments.

Originally Posted by chris08876

I'd be interested to see the stats at 5000 sq miles. Inner and outer rings.

That would be 13,000 sq km. From the top of my mind, that's exactly the size of Ilê de France (Paris metro area) and Shanghai-Suzhou. 12 million in France, 33 million in China.

Originally Posted by chris08876

Whats fueling the growth is Sao Paulo? Immigration or annexations?

No annexations. I used fix borders. São Paulo is actually slowing down. Brazil makes Census since 1870, and the 2000-2010 period was the first time ever that São Paulo state (45 million people today) grew less than a country as a whole (205 million people). Small difference though 11% vs 12%. Today, São Paulo growth is pretty much natural. Net migration is pretty much zero.

São Paulo growth dynamics is similar to New York in some aspects: the city grew from nothing up due the massive influx of European immigrants. When the flow stopped by 1940, São Paulo took full advantage of rural exodus, something New York didn't count on (due its geographical position and an earlier urban transition in the Northeast US), and also, the huge immigration from the much poorer Northeast Brazil, in a situation more comparable to the Sunbelt metro areas. That's why São Paulo kept growing all over the century, while New York pretty much peaked.

[SHiRO]

Things are getting more problematic in this thread...


Yuri, I think you at least should use official definitions where they exist. That means MSAs for the US cities and the GTA for Toronto (Toronto CMA has the same problem the Bay Area and LA/IE have in the US).

Your methodology of using fixed borders doesn't make much sense for metropolitan areas. The whole idea of metropolitan areas is that they also grow in area by adding adjacent areas or areas merging together as mobility increases. Your methodology makes more sense for (inner) cities or specific neighbourhoods.

In any case, the title of this thread doesn't fit what you are trying to accomplish. I think we should change the title into "Growth of World Cities (1940-2010)" or something alike. Let me know if you agree.




People have already stated their misgivings about the US "metro areas". Let me add my own about the European ones...

You have Berlin "metro area" listed at 3,723,416 which is barely more than its city population! There exists an official definition for a Berlin metro area which had 5,960,725 inhabitants in 2010. This metro area is more comparable to a CSA however. There's another definition that had 4,4 million in 2010 that's something between a US urban area and a MSA. I would have no problem if you used this, eventhough it's still an undercount.






For Moscow it's even worse! 11,500,000 (2010) is just the Federal City not including any suburbs! It's metro area should be 15M+ even in 2010. (Moscow annexed a lot of territory in 2012 btw, but the Federal City still pretty much remains the city proper plus some mostly rural land, still excluding the suburbs along the many rail lines radiating from the central city.


(southwestern chunk is what was added in 2012)



Still appreciating what you are trying to do though Please take into account what people have been saying so far and please consider changing the title of the thread.

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by ue

I'm definitely curious as to how European metros compare to North American and Oceanian metros, as they seem to be tallied differently. If you can find an accurate cross-comparison, I'd love to see it. Some say London is 13 million, some say its undercounted by American standards and is over 15 million.

Glad you brought up London...

In case of London we can definately say that by American (MSA) standards it's over 15 million.

http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/defau...es-note-17.pdf

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

I did this exercise, using CSA New York as reference, and finding 30,000 km² around some world metropolises:

New York CSA covers 34,493 km²; London at 34,415 km² (London, South East, East of England minus Norfolk); Paris at 36,567 km² (Ilê de France, Oise, Loiret, Eure and Eure-et-Loire); 30,749 km² for São Paulo (Mesorregião Metropolitana de São Paulo, Microrregião de Itanhaém, Mesorregião Macro Metropolitana Paulista, Microrregião de São José dos Campos and Microrregião de Campinas); Shanghai with 29,433 km² (Shanghai, Suzhou, Wuxi, Jiaxing, Huzhou); Tokyo with 32,424 km² (Kantō).

--------------------------- 2010 --------- 2000 ------ Growth %
Shanghai ----------- 47,252,965
Tokyo --------------- 42,607,376
São Paulo ----------- 28,064,344 --- 25,071,516 --- 11.9%
New York ----------- 23,154,211 --- 22,314,859 ----- 3.8%
London -------------- 21,796,256
Paris ----------------- 14,340,623

London is closing the gap against New York in a very fast pace. We might have a draw by 2020.

This is not a good way for comparing cities. I live in a city of 210,000 (450,000 metro) and 40 million people live in the 30,000 km2 around me. This is due to the fact that my city is almost at the center of Randstad, Rhein-Ruhr and the Flemish Diamond metro areas.

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

That would be 13,000 sq km. From the top of my mind, that's exactly the size of Ilê de France (Paris metro area) and Shanghai-Suzhou. 12 million in France, 33 million in China.

Ilê de France is not Paris' metro area .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Metropolitan_Area

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by SHiRO

Things are getting more problematic in this thread...


Yuri, I think you at least should use official definitions where they exist. That means MSAs for the US cities and the GTA for Toronto (Toronto CMA has the same problem the Bay Area and LA/IE have in the US).

Official definitions exist everywhere. They are just not harmonised. For Toronto, only CMA gives me figures going back to 1940 (1941). I might add Hamilton CMA in the next update.

Originally Posted by SHiRO

Your methodology of using fixed borders doesn't make much sense for metropolitan areas. The whole idea of metropolitan areas is that they also grow in area by adding adjacent areas or areas merging together as mobility increases. Your methodology makes more sense for (inner) cities or specific neighbourhoods.

I wouldn't say that, specially as they encorpasses virtually all the urbanised areas of the current metro areas, and are not large enough to add much rural population distorting the figures for 1940, 1950.

Originally Posted by SHiRO

In any case, the title of this thread doesn't fit what you are trying to accomplish. I think we should change the title into "Growth of World Cities (1940-2010)" or something alike. Let me know if you agree.

I wouldn't have a problem with that. I want more discussions like the one I was having with chris08876, and less "I'm confused", "it's a mess".

Originally Posted by SHiRO

People have already stated their misgivings about the US "metro areas". Let me add my own about the European ones...

I don't understand the "metro areas" under quotes. I'm pretty sure if I go to Detroit and says that the three counties form Detroit metro area, no one will be shocked. Same for Los Angeles plus Orange plus Inland Empire.

Originally Posted by SHiRO

You have Berlin "metro area" listed at 3,723,416 which is barely more than its city population! There exists an official definition for a Berlin metro area which had 5,960,725 inhabitants in 2010. This metro area is more comparable to a CSA however. There's another definition that had 4,4 million in 2010 that's something between a US urban area and a MSA. I would have no problem if you used this, eventhough it's still an undercount....

For Berlin I added Postdam, those two municipalities north of Postdam, and three eastwards, those where Berlin urban tissue goes beyond the city proper borders.

Originally Posted by SHiRO

For Moscow it's even worse! 11,500,000 (2010) is just the Federal City not including any suburbs! It's metro area should be 15M+ even in 2010. (Moscow annexed a lot of territory in 2012 btw, but the Federal City still pretty much remains the city proper plus some mostly rural land, still excluding the suburbs along the many rail lines radiating from the central city.

As I stated several times, and it was obvious as I insert growth figures right in the first post, rigid borders are extremely important here. I don't think we can find suburban figures for Moscow going way back to 1940. Also, the areas beyond city proper seem rather depopulated not affecting so much the comparison.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by SHiRO

This is not a good way for comparing cities. I live in a city of 210,000 (450,000 metro) and 40 million people live in the 30,000 km2 around me. This is due to the fact that my city is almost at the center of Randstad, Rhein-Ruhr and the Flemish Diamond metro areas.

Yes, that's why I featured only areas centered around megacities.

Originally Posted by SHiRO

Ilê de France is not Paris' metro area .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Metropolitan_Area

I'm aware it's not, but can easily be used as a proxy for it. One can see how close their populations are.

[Yuri]

Adding Montreal, New Orleans, Belo Horizonte and Hong Kong:

2010

SÃO PAULO ---------- 19,683,975 --- (+10.1%)
NEW YORK ----------- 18,802,678 ---- (+2.8%)
LOS ANGELES -------- 17,053,688 ---- (+9.2%)
BUENOS AIRES ------- 12,806,866 --- (+11.7%)
RIO DE JANEIRO ----- 11,601,307 ---- (+8.6%)
MOSCOW ------------- 11,503,501 --- (+15.8%)
CHICAGO ------------- 8,812,655 ---- (+3.8%)
HONG KONG ----------- 7,071,576 ---- (+5.4%)
TORONTO ------------- 5,583,064 --- (+19.2%)
PHILADELPHIA -------- 5,259,673 ---- (+4.4%)
ST. PETERSBURG ------ 4,879,566 ---- (+2.9%)
BELO HORIZONTE ------ 4,772,562 --- (+12.1%)
DETROIT ------------- 3,863,924 ---- (-4.4%)
MONTREAL ------------ 3,824,221 --- (+11.1%)
BERLIN -------------- 3,723,416 ---- (+3.5%)
PORTO ALEGRE -------- 3,628,029 ---- (+5.9%)
ST. LOUIS ----------- 2,603,766 ---- (+3.8%)
CLEVELAND ----------- 1,904,908 ---- (-4.6%)
NEW ORLEANS ----------- 888,100 --- (-17.9%)



2000

NEW YORK ----------- 18,286,461 ---- (+8.3%)
SÃO PAULO ---------- 17,878,703 --- (+15.3%)
LOS ANGELES -------- 15,620,448 --- (+12.7%)
BUENOS AIRES ------- 11,460,575 ---- (+4.8%)
RIO DE JANEIRO ----- 10,681,517 --- (+10.7%)
MOSCOW -------------- 9,932,932 --- (+11.9%)
CHICAGO ------------- 8,576,284 --- (+10.9%)
HONG KONG ----------- 6,708,389 --- (+18.2%)
PHILADELPHIA -------- 5,036,646 ---- (+3.7%)
ST. PETERSBURG ------ 4,741,923 ---- (-5.2%)
TORONTO ------------- 4,682,897 --- (+20.3%)
BELO HORIZONTE ------ 4,259,163 --- (+24.0%)
DETROIT ------------- 4,043,467 ---- (+3.3%)
BERLIN -------------- 3,596,968 ---- (-1.0%)
MONTREAL ------------ 3,426,350 ---- (+9.6%)
PORTO ALEGRE -------- 3,425,044 --- (+15.9%)
ST. LOUIS ----------- 2,507,460 ---- (+4.1%)
CLEVELAND ----------- 1,997,048 ---- (+0.9%)
NEW ORLEANS --------- 1,082,198 ---- (+0.2%)



1990

NEW YORK ----------- 16,889,862 ---- (+2.2%)
SÃO PAULO ---------- 15,444,941 --- (+22.7%)
LOS ANGELES -------- 13,862,513 --- (+26.4%)
BUENOS AIRES ------- 10,934,727 --- (+12.0%)
RIO DE JANEIRO ------ 9,647,165 --- (+11.7%)
MOSCOW -------------- 8,880,124 --- (+13.4%)
CHICAGO ------------- 7,736,770 ---- (+1.4%)
HONG KONG ----------- 5,674,114 --- (+11.0%)
ST. PETERSBURG ------ 5,002,444 ---- (+7.9%)
PHILADELPHIA -------- 4,856,881 ---- (+3.0%)
DETROIT ------------- 3,912,679 ---- (-3.3%)
TORONTO ------------- 3,893,933 --- (+29.8%)
BERLIN -------------- 3,634,257 --- (+12.0%)
BELO HORIZONTE ------ 3,436,060 --- (+31.3%)
MONTREAL ------------ 3,127,242 ---- (+9.3%)
PORTO ALEGRE -------- 2,954,130 --- (+32.4%)
ST. LOUIS ----------- 2,409,150 ---- (+3.0%)
CLEVELAND ----------- 1,979,894 ---- (-3.9%)
NEW ORLEANS --------- 1,079,887 ---- (-5.2%)



1980

NEW YORK ----------- 16,525,889 ---- (-5.2%)
SÃO PAULO ---------- 12,588,745 --- (+54.7%)
LOS ANGELES -------- 10,968,312 --- (+14.3%)
BUENOS AIRES -------- 9,766,030 --- (+16.9%)
RIO DE JANEIRO ------ 8,637,995 --- (+27.1%)
MOSCOW -------------- 7,830,509 --- (+12.8%)
CHICAGO ------------- 7,626,589 ---- (+1.3%)
HONG KONG ----------- 5,109,812 --- (+27.9%)
PHILADELPHIA -------- 4,717,217 ---- (-2.1%)
ST. PETERSBURG ------ 4,635,200 --- (+17.4%)
DETROIT ------------- 4,044,284 ---- (-3.7%)
BERLIN -------------- 3,244,823 ---- (-4.3%)
TORONTO ------------- 2,998,947 --- (+14.1%)
MONTREAL ------------ 2,862,286 ---- (+4.3%)
BELO HORIZONTE ------ 2,609,547 --- (+57.3%)
ST. LOUIS ----------- 2,338,459 ---- (-2.2%)
PORTO ALEGRE -------- 2,231,360 --- (+45.7%)
CLEVELAND ----------- 2,060,584 ---- (-7.9%)
NEW ORLEANS --------- 1,139,512 ---- (+9.9%)



1970

NEW YORK ----------- 17,433,912 --- (+10.7%)
LOS ANGELES --------- 9,595,607 --- (+27.1%)
BUENOS AIRES -------- 8,352,611 --- (+23.9%)
SÃO PAULO ----------- 8,139,705 --- (+69.9%)
CHICAGO ------------- 7,525,200 --- (+11.7%)
MOSCOW -------------- 6,941,961 --- (+37.6%)
RIO DE JANEIRO ------ 6,797,976 --- (+41.3%)
PHILADELPHIA -------- 4,817,914 --- (+10.9%)
DETROIT ------------- 4,199,931 --- (+11.6%)
HONG KONG ----------- 3,995,400 --- (+29.9%)
ST. PETERSBURG ------ 3,949,501 --- (+15.1%)
BERLIN -------------- 3,389,655 ---- (-1.9%)
MONTREAL ------------ 2,743,208 --- (+30.0%)
TORONTO ------------- 2,628,045 --- (+36.9%)
ST. LOUIS ----------- 2,391,547 --- (+12.3%)
CLEVELAND ----------- 2,238,320 ---- (+8.6%)
BELO HORIZONTE ------ 1,658,482 --- (+78.7%)
PORTO ALEGRE -------- 1,531,255 --- (+49.0%)
NEW ORLEANS --------- 1,036,999 --- (+13.7%)



1960

NEW YORK ----------- 15,747,419 --- (+15.4%)
LOS ANGELES --------- 7,552,478 --- (+56.7%)
BUENOS AIRES -------- 6,739,045
CHICAGO ------------- 6,734,182 --- (+21.4%)
MOSCOW -------------- 5,045,905
RIO DE JANEIRO ------ 4,811,937 --- (+53.3%)
SÃO PAULO ----------- 4,791,245 --- (+79.9%)
PHILADELPHIA -------- 4,342,897 --- (+18.3%)
DETROIT ------------- 3,762,360 --- (+24.7%)
BERLIN -------------- 3,455,612 ---- (-1.9%)
ST. PETERSBURG ------ 3,432,000 --- (+52.0%)
HONG KONG ----------- 3,075,000 --- (+55.8%)
ST. LOUIS ----------- 2,128,926 --- (+19.9%)
MONTREAL ------------ 2,110,679 --- (+37.1%)
CLEVELAND ----------- 2,061,668 --- (+25.7%)
TORONTO ------------- 1,919,000 --- (+52.1%)
PORTO ALEGRE -------- 1,027,507 --- (+68.3%)
BELO HORIZONTE -------- 927,880 --- (+77.4%)
NEW ORLEANS ----------- 912,244 --- (+27.9%)



1950

NEW YORK ----------- 13,641,663 --- (+11.4%)
CHICAGO ------------- 5,546,020 --- (+14.0%)
LOS ANGELES --------- 4,819,599 --- (+51.4%)
PHILADELPHIA -------- 3,671,048 --- (+14.7%)
BERLIN -------------- 3,523,792 --- (-22.4%)
RIO DE JANEIRO ------ 3,137,977 --- (+42.4%)
DETROIT ------------- 3,016,197 --- (+26.9%)
SÃO PAULO ----------- 2,662,776 --- (+69.8%)
ST. PETERSBURG ------ 2,258,000 --- (-29.2%)
HONG KONG ----------- 1,974,000
ST. LOUIS ----------- 1,776,282 --- (+17.0%)
CLEVELAND ----------- 1,640,319 --- (+17.2%)
MONTREAL ------------ 1,539,308 --- (+29.1%)
TORONTO ------------- 1,262,000 --- (+40.2%)
NEW ORLEANS ----------- 713,007 --- (+23.6%)
PORTO ALEGRE ---------- 610,628 --- (+44.5%)
BELO HORIZONTE -------- 522,919 --- (+41.8%)



1940

NEW YORK ----------- 12,240,461
CHICAGO ------------- 4,862,838
BERLIN -------------- 4,539,256
MOSCOW -------------- 4,131,633
PHILADELPHIA -------- 3,199,637
ST. PETERSBURG ------ 3,191,304
LOS ANGELES --------- 3,183,035
DETROIT ------------- 2,377,329
RIO DE JANEIRO ------ 2,203,345
SÃO PAULO ----------- 1,568,045
ST. LOUIS ----------- 1,518,467
CLEVELAND ----------- 1,399,090
MONTREAL ------------ 1,192,235
TORONTO --------------- 900,000
NEW ORLEANS ----------- 576,883
PORTO ALEGRE ---------- 422,589
BELO HORIZONTE -------- 368,784

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

2010
TORONTO ------------- 5,583,064 --- (+19.2%)
MONTREAL ------------ 3,824,221 --- (+11.1%)


2000
TORONTO ------------- 4,682,897 --- (+20.3%)
MONTREAL ------------ 3,426,350 ---- (+9.6%)


1990
TORONTO ------------- 3,893,933 --- (+29.8%)
MONTREAL ------------ 3,127,242 ---- (+9.3%)


1980
TORONTO ------------- 2,998,947 --- (+14.1%)
MONTREAL ------------ 2,862,286 ---- (+4.3%)


1970
MONTREAL ------------ 2,743,208 --- (+30.0%)
TORONTO ------------- 2,628,045 --- (+36.9%)


1960
MONTREAL ------------ 2,110,679 --- (+37.1%)
TORONTO ------------- 1,919,000 --- (+52.1%)


1950
MONTREAL ------------ 1,539,308 --- (+29.1%)
TORONTO ------------- 1,262,000 --- (+40.2%)


1940
MONTREAL ------------ 1,192,235
TORONTO --------------- 900,000

Montreal, due the lost of their primary position in Canada, the fail on the Olympics, Mirabel Airport, is strongly associated with decay. However, their posted a quite consistent growth all over the period. Way better than US Rust Belt, including Chicago.

[softee]

Originally Posted by SHiRO

Yuri, I think you at least should use official definitions where they exist. That means MSAs for the US cities and the GTA for Toronto (Toronto CMA has the same problem the Bay Area and LA/IE have in the US

Yeah, the Toronto CMA is not really compatible with a U.S. MSA as it leaves out some large and prominent suburbs. The closest comparison to an MSA would be the GTA or perhaps even the GTHA (Greater Toronto-Hamilton area).

The much more expansive Greater Golden Horseshoe would be the closest comparison to an American CSA.

[Minato Ku]

Originally Posted by SHiRO

Glad you brought up London...

In case of London we can definately say that by American (MSA) standards it's over 15 million.

http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/defau...es-note-17.pdf

Well, your link is not saying this and it uses a much broader definition than the MSA.

What are the threshold levels of in- and out- commuting which determine
whether a unit should be included in the commuting field? We use a
threshold of at least 10 per cent of the resident employed population
commuting into the core.

A little reminder, it is 25% of the resident employed population commuting into the core for MSA.

So no, we definately can't say that by American (MSA) standards it's over 15 million.

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Official definitions exist everywhere. They are just not harmonised.

But neither are your definitions. In fact yours are more random than just using the official ones if you make sure to pick the ones that are most comparable.

For Toronto, only CMA gives me figures going back to 1940 (1941). I might add Hamilton CMA in the next update.

The GTA is the City of Toronto plus, Halton, Peel, York and Durham. I'm sure data is available no?

I wouldn't say that, specially as they encorpasses virtually all the urbanised areas of the current metro areas, and are not large enough to add much rural population distorting the figures for 1940, 1950.

But you're not including all the urbanised areas of many of these metro areas! For Moscow, you are missing millions of people who are definately not rural, but suburban. If it's the point of determining population growth of metro areas, than many metro areas saw enormous suburban growth in exactely the period you chose. I'd say that inclusion of suburban areas even defines the term "metropolitan area". If it's the point to show population growth in just the core city than that has little to do with "metropolitan area".

I wouldn't have a problem with that. I want more discussions like the one I was having with chris08876, and less "I'm confused", "it's a mess".

OK, I'll change it then...

I don't understand the "metro areas" under quotes. I'm pretty sure if I go to Detroit and says that the three counties form Detroit metro area, no one will be shocked. Same for Los Angeles plus Orange plus Inland Empire.

For Berlin I added Postdam, those two municipalities north of Postdam, and three eastwards, those where Berlin urban tissue goes beyond the city proper borders.

"Metro areas" is under quotes because you are not refering to metro areas. You even admit it in this post. Potsdam and a couple of municipalities is not what comprises Berlin's metro area. What you are describing is (a very strict definition of) an urban area! (Berlin like many European cities has a green belt).

As I stated several times, and it was obvious as I insert growth figures right in the first post, rigid borders are extremely important here. I don't think we can find suburban figures for Moscow going way back to 1940. Also, the areas beyond city proper seem rather depopulated not affecting so much the comparison.

Then you should call it Moscow Federal City, not metropolitan Moscow. And the areas around Moscow are not depopulated at all! 7,231,068 people live in the area around Moscow (Moscow Oblast)!

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by Minato Ku

Well, your link is not saying this and it uses a much broader definition than the MSA.

It mentions the need for a comparative definition and mentions US Census definitions as one of three main methods. "Much" broader definition? How so? Exaggerate much?

A little reminder, it is 25% of the resident employed population commuting into the core for MSA.

A little reminder..., it's 25% in and outbound commuting. Also the building blocks used for MSAs are much larger than what the GLA uses (NUTS 4 and NUTS 5) US counties would be NUTS 3 size in the UK and NUTS 2 in the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany. So it's not possible to make a flawless comparison, but this one comes very close.
Also, a threshold of 10% doesn't mean that most or even many of the building blocks are towards that end of the spectrum. In fact, if you care to check, most are way higher (and again, you have to add the inbound % from London).

So no, we definately can't say that by American (MSA) standards it's over 15 million.

OK, I'll grant you that it isn't definately, because a perfect comparison would be impossible. But this method comes very close. Only someone who is really determined to prove otherwise (as in having a bias) would reject this.

Minato... the anti London thing is getting more than ridiculous. This thread isn't even about London...

[Minato Ku]

No, for MSA, it is 25% only for inbound commuting.

It is not anti-London but the need to restore some truth based on facts, data and calculations.
I don't understand the need to make London larger than it really is.
London is already one of the greatest cities in the world, there is nothing to prove.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Minato Ku

No, for MSA, it is 25% only for inbound commuting.

It is not anti-London but the need to restore some truth based on facts, data and calculations.
I don't understand the need to make London larger than it really is.
London is already one of the greatest cities in the world, there is nothing to prove.

Well, the truth is London has 22 million people in a 100 km radius (about 30,000 km2) and has been growing in a very fast pace. In comparison, Paris houses 14 million in a slight bigger area.

But as Shiro said, it's incredibly boring to have the thread hijacked by Brisavoine with his obsessive pro French posting.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Well, the truth is London has 22 million people in a 100 km radius (about 30,000 km2) and has been growing in a very fast pace. In comparison, Paris houses 14 million in a slight bigger area.

That has zero to do with relative size of metro area. There are tiny rural villages in Germany or Netherlands that probably have more people in a given radius than Paris or London.

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

But as Shiro said, it's incredibly boring to have the thread hijacked by Brisavoine with his obsessive pro French posting.

No, the problem in this thread is that you made up arbitrary metro area boundaries, instead of using a consistent metric across cities, where available.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

That has zero to do with relative size of metro area. There are tiny rural villages in Germany or Netherlands that probably have more people in a given radius than Paris or London.

Sure, and they have the same influence over their 100km radius as London and Paris have...

Originally Posted by Crawford

No, the problem in this thread is that you made up arbitrary metro area boundaries, instead of using a consistent metric across cities, where available.

Consistent would be 35,000 km2 for New York and 8,000 km2 for São Paulo...

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

I wrote several long posts yesterday which showed the commuter rates around London for many towns and cities + administrative districts, plus figures for the overall London metro area defined with a 40% commuter threshold (French definition) or a 25% threshold (US definition), but they were all mysteriously deleted.

Yes. Open a thread about it and stop spamming here.

Originally Posted by Crawford

No, the problem in this thread is that you made up arbitrary metro area boundaries, instead of using a consistent metric across cities, where available.

BTW, all metro area definition will be arbitrary.

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by Minato Ku

No, for MSA, it is 25% only for inbound commuting.

It is not anti-London but the need to restore some truth based on facts, data and calculations.
I don't understand the need to make London larger than it really is.
London is already one of the greatest cities in the world, there is nothing to prove.

Nobody is making London larger than it is...


Greater London which is the city proper is 8.5 million.
London urban area is 10.2 million.

Eurostat defines a Larger Urban Zone for London of ~12.5 million and a metropolitan area of 14 million! (2014)

ESPON defined a metro area for London of 13.7 million in 2007 (which would make it ~15.2 million now)

The GLA defines a metro area for London between 14.5 million and 16.5 million with a method that is comparable to how the US Census calculates MSAs.

Also the GLA defines a wider metropolitan region of ~20 million which is comparable to a US CSA.



These are the facts and there is nothing surprising about them really...

There have been people who have been trolling this forum for years on this issue and are now even going as far as making claims that London metro is just 10.3 million based on their own doctored calculations (yep barely 100K more than the official urban area ) I think the time has come to for harsher measures. We're not going to facilitate this often off topic hijacking and trolling anymore. I expect you to be on the right side of this issue.



Now back to the thread please.

[Minato Ku]

None of them are based on commuting calculation like American MSA or CSA, so stop claiming the oposite.
The GLA wider metropolitan region is not at all similar to CSA.