F*ck the CMA: Find Population on Map

[urbanadvocate]

Delete

[urbanadvocate]

Two other interesting ones:

Sacramento: 4,130,439

And if you do Oakland instead of SF:

Oakland: 8,497.024

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

L.A. was the fourth largest city then, so it was obviously big, but it wasn't built out like the other big cities of the era. L.A. was only slightly larger in population than Detroit in 1950, but it had 3 times the land area.

Sure. But prewar LA is still pretty big.in area..
Its bigger than a DC, or Baltimore for example.
From east la to century city (where post war la begins)
Is almost 10 miles across.

[Yuri]

I found more numbers in some old file of mine. Big cities in Americas:

150 km
Mexico City ---- 36.3 million
São Paulo ------ 32.7 million
New York ------- 29.0 million
Los Angeles ---- 19.1 million
Buenos Aires --- 16.6 million
Rio de Janeiro - 16.6 million
Bogotá --------- 13.2 million
Chicago -------- 13.1 million
Lima ----------- 10.3 million

125 km
Mexico City ---- 34.0 million
São Paulo ------ 30.5 million
New York ------- 25.0 million
Los Angeles ---- 18.1 million
Buenos Aires --- 16.4 million
Rio de Janeiro - 15.5 million
Bogotá --------- 12.0 million
Chicago -------- 11.1 million
Lima ----------- 10.0 million

100 km
Mexico City ---- 30.0 million
São Paulo ------ 28.7 million
New York ------- 21.4 million
Los Angeles ---- 17.0 million
Buenos Aires --- 16.2 million
Rio de Janeiro - 14.3 million
Bogotá --------- 11.1 million
Chicago -------- 10.0 million
Lima ------------ 9.7 million

75 km
Mexico City ---- 26.3 million
São Paulo ------ 24.5 million
New York ------- 18.8 million
Buenos Aires --- 15.8 million
Los Angeles ---- 14.7 million
Rio de Janeiro - 13.5 million
Bogotá --------- 10.0 million
Lima ------------ 9.6 million
Chicago --------- 9.2 million

50 km
São Paulo ------ 21.9 million
Mexico City ---- 21.8 million
New York ------- 16.0 million
Buenos Aires --- 14.6 million
Rio de Janeiro - 12.3 million
Los Angeles ---- 11.6 million
Bogotá ---------- 9.5 million
Lima ------------ 9.4 million
Chicago --------- 7.2 million

25 km
São Paulo ------ 17.4 million
Mexico City ---- 16.4 million
New York ------- 10.9 million
Buenos Aires ---- 9.7 million
Lima ------------ 9.0 million
Bogotá ---------- 8.6 million
Rio de Janeiro -- 6.6 million
Los Angeles ----- 6.3 million
Chicago --------- 4.0 million

--- Buenos Aires and Lima surroundings are very empty. Almost nothing outside the urban area. Lima barely jumps from 25km to 150km;

--- At 150 km, Mexico City includes all central valley metro areas, São Paulo includes the whole macrometropolitan area and New York engulfs half of Philadelphia and Hartford metro areas;

[Yuri]

Just a generic comment about those metro areas definitions discussions about what should or not be included and density of surroundings.

Metropolitan area is a rather new concept, dating the early 20th century when cities started to outgrow their legal boundaries. Since then, world's population jumped from 2 billion to 8 billion and definitions must keep evolving. Now we have metropolitan areas growing together.

London metropolitan area will eventually include previously independent Reading and Milton Keynes, São Paulo is more and more interconnected with its macrometropolitan area, Washington-Baltimore, etc.

[Nouvellecosse]

^ What made you decide on those 9? Did they the only ones to meet a particular threshold? Just wondering since a top 10 is much more common than a top 9.

[Minato Ku]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Just a generic comment about those metro areas definitions discussions about what should or not be included and density of surroundings.

Metropolitan area is a rather new concept, dating the early 20th century when cities started to outgrow their legal boundaries. Since then, world's population jumped from 2 billion to 8 billion and definitions must keep evolving. Now we have metropolitan areas growing together.

London metropolitan area will eventually include previously independent Reading and Milton Keynes, São Paulo is more and more interconnected with its macrometropolitan area, Washington-Baltimore, etc.

Or it could be the opposite because cities with hundred million habitants make few senses if those megacities are just made several cities close to each other in a dense region, criterias for metropolitan area could become more strict.
So even if two urban areas are touching each other, those could be considered as two different metropolitan areas because commute patterns between both cities are not high enough.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by LA21st

Sure. But prewar LA is still pretty big.in area..
Its bigger than a DC, or Baltimore for example.
From east la to century city (where post war la begins)
Is almost 10 miles across.

Yes. But if L.A.'s boundaries were limited to where the prewar population lived, it would probably have declined in population postwar like the rest of the top 10 from 1950.

[BnaBreaker]

South Bend, IN: 2,018,845

-Includes zero square miles of Illinois, for those wondering.

[lio45]

Second biggest (after the GTA) in Canada using that metric is Hawkesbury (over 5 million people within 100 km).

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by lio45

Second biggest (after the GTA) in Canada using that metric is Hawkesbury (over 5 million people within 100 km).

More than Windsor?

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by lio45

Second biggest (after the GTA) in Canada using that metric is Hawkesbury (over 5 million people within 100 km).

No, it's Saint-Hyacinthe. Hawkesbury 5.001M , Saint-Hyacinthe 5.008M

[Razor]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

For shits and giggles, and likely some spirited discussion about population density, geography, and CMAs.
https://www.freemaptools.com/find-population.htm

Within 100km (62.14 miles in the ancient measurement system of cubits and pecks) of downtown_____, there are _______ people:
Toronto 8,626,831
Montreal 4,737,767
Vancouver 3,207,026
Ottawa 1,605,037

This seems to be on point for Ottawa.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Razor

This seems to be on point for Ottawa.

I guess Ottawa, not ___ is part of the "Big Four"?

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by lio45

Second biggest (after the GTA) in Canada using that metric is Hawkesbury (over 5 million people within 100 km).

greatest kept secret in the world. Hawkesbury has two international airports, one freight airport, four metro lines, an international port (not at all landlocked), 2 light rail lines, and much more to come. Wooty woot.

[MolsonExport]

150kms centred on Toronto

The estimated population in the defined area is 10,483,620

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

150kms centred on Toronto

The estimated population in the defined area is 10,483,620

150kms centered on YUL Montréal - 6,181,572.
170kms - 7,056,701 ,

Ottawa is that ''close''

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

^ What made you decide on those 9? Did they the only ones to meet a particular threshold? Just wondering since a top 10 is much more common than a top 9.

Metro/urban area being above 10 million (or almost getting there).

Originally Posted by Minato Ku

Or it could be the opposite because cities with hundred million habitants make few senses if those megacities are just made several cities close to each other in a dense region, criterias for metropolitan area could become more strict.
So even if two urban areas are touching each other, those could be considered as two different metropolitan areas because commute patterns between both cities are not high enough.

Well, things change. For instance, Brazilian Statistical Office made a comprehensive list of metropolitan areas few year ago and by the commute criteria they used, the collection of metropolitan areas that form São Paulo macrometropolitan area have actually turned into a regular metropolitan area despite the multiple centres of employment and study. They opted to keep them apart for the sake of it, but dedicated a whole chapter to São Paulo to explain this new dinamic.

And as they used 2010 Census data, by 2020 they are probably more tied together.

Same thing will probably happen elsewhere, London comes to mind, as it's full of cities around and had grown at a rather fast pace.

[nito]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

London metropolitan area will eventually include previously independent Reading and Milton Keynes

This isn’t going to happen in the context of traditional metropolitan area definitions which are built upon urban sprawl, especially when the Green Belt isn’t going anywhere. In the context of connectivity and/or flows, then it is a different conversation.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by nito

This isn’t going to happen in the context of traditional metropolitan area definitions which are built upon urban sprawl, especially when the Green Belt isn’t going anywhere. In the context of connectivity and/or flows, then it is a different conversation.

I guess it's a mix of two things. If we take London or São Paulo, both with very populated areas surrounding them, it's only natural that when population grows (Southeast England adding 2.5 million people/decade, SP Macrometropolitan adding 3 million/decade) that commute patterns become more intense and new land is urbanized, making the urban footprint bigger.

Citypopulation.de, for instance, brings Reading as part of London sprawl: http://citypopulation.de/en/uk/agglo/. I guess Luton, Aylesbury, Chelmsford and Sevenoaks will be eventually swallowed as population is growing all over the area and I'm aware they are upgrading their transit, making commute easier and faster.

We cannot expect that metropolitan boundaries keep frozen in time (São Paulo metro area was legally defined in 1970, when population was 1/3 of today's) otherwise they will be as useful as looking at city proper as a measurement of how big a city is.