How much a city can grow?

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by aderwent

Yeah I'm impatiently waiting, too. They also changed the definition. I hope they release numbers with the old formula too for comparison's sake.

What is the new definition?

[mousquet]

Originally Posted by Minato Ku

Avenue du General de Gaulle between the City of Paris and La Défense is more urban than Commercial road but there is always a kind of psychological barrier.
https://www.google.fr/maps/@48.88172...7i16384!8i8192

Bah, I find the avenues of the Grande Armée in the inner city and of de Gaulle in Neuilly to be somewhat urban already.
Sure there's a lot of cars, but that's because the right wing running these wealthy areas doesn't really believe in urban cycling. They'd rather stick to their big Mercedes-Benz. They're lazy in that respect, no sporty people. That's not really sexy from them...

However, they're usually practicable to pedestrians. Sidewalks are ok. It gets really worse only when you get to Pont de Neuilly that feels like a so-called 'stroad' (contraction of street and road) or even worse, but that's because cars to go under La Défense's massive pedestrian infrastructure all run there.
So there's a pretty big concentration of cars right there.

Besides, there's a whole mess of construction sites on the de Gaulle avenue in Neuilly for now, that doesn't help either at the moment. But when the work is done, it should feel better than it ever did before. Those wealthy districts are meant to last anyway.

[Minato Ku]

Rhine-Ruhr is an area of several cities close to each other that grew independently of each other.
There isn't a core that dominate because it never was a single city that fueled the growth of a region. It's not a single market.
People don't settle to Duisbourg to work in Essen or Düsseldorf. It's not a single market area. I would say it's not a city but several cities close to each other.

The result is that despite a 11 million inhabitants population, the regional Rhine-Ruhr. S-bahn only carries something like 130 million passengers annual passengers.
That's less than the S bahn of Munich or Frankfurt despite being in less populated region.
People don't commute that far and don't need to use the S-Bahn.

To put thing in perspective, Paris RER/suburban network has a ridership 10 times higher than Rhine-Ruhr S-Bahn.

We have to ask a question, what is a city and what is a metropolitan area? This question is even more important in very dense region or countries where cities can be very close to each other or even touching each and yet still working independently.
I would never say that Rhine-Ruhr is a bigger city than Madrid because I don't considere Rhine-Ruhr to be a single city.

I would say the same about Randstad in Netherlands or Pearl River Delta in China.
Even Philalephia and New York City. Those are clearly two separate cities and two separate markets even if the sprawl means that their urban areas are merging.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Minato Ku

Rhine-Ruhr is an area of several cities close to each other that grew independently of each other.
There isn't a core that dominate because it never was a single city that fueled the growth of a region. It's not a single market.
People don't settle to Duisbourg to work in Essen or Düsseldorf. It's not a single market area. I would say it's not a city but several cities close to each other.

The result is that despite a 11 million inhabitants population, the regional Rhine-Ruhr. S-bahn only carries something like 130 million passengers annual passengers.
That's less than the S bahn of Munich or Frankfurt despite being in less populated region.
People don't commute that far and don't need to use the S-Bahn.

To put thing in perspective, Paris RER/suburban network has a ridership 10 times higher than Rhine-Ruhr S-Bahn.

We have to ask a question, what is a city and what is a metropolitan area? This question is even more important in very dense region or countries where cities can be very close to each other or even touching each and yet still working independently.
I would never say that Rhine-Ruhr is a bigger city than Madrid because I don't considere Rhine-Ruhr to be a single city.

I would say the same about Randstad in Netherlands or Pearl River Delta in China.
Even Philalephia and New York City. Those are clearly two separate cities and two separate markets even if the sprawl means that their urban areas are merging.

I say Rhine-Ruhr is a (polycentric) metro area. Madrid is a “city”, a (monocentric) metro area.

This thread cares about the latter, asking on how much a “city” can grow.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Yuri

I say Rhine-Ruhr is a (polycentric) metro area. Madrid is a “city”, a (monocentric) metro area.

This thread cares about the latter, asking on how much a “city” can grow.

You keep ignoring the points that others are making, and failing to properly distinguish between monocentric cities, polycentric cities, and megalopoli.

There are 3 categories here, not 2.

The Rhein-Ruhr region, or the Midlands conurbation in England, or Washington-Baltimore, are not “polycentric cities” but agglomerations of multiple cities. The Bay Area even fits this definition (but is more constrained by geography).

Tokyo, London or Los Angeles ARE polycentric cities with multiple commercial/financial centers. These contrast with a city like Chicago, which is truly monocentric.

I.e., one can live in London and commute from Essex into Liverpool Street, work in the City, party in Shoreditch, etc and never set foot in the West End or Knightsbridge or Kensington & Chelsea, and vice versa. Downtown Chicago on the other hand is one large CBD.

The point I am making is that there is probably a practical limit to how big a truly monocentric city like Chicago can grow because it becomes inefficient. There is no limit to how large a Tokyo/London/LA polycentric city can grow because people don’t actually have to get themselves from one part to the other; you can work in one “node” and live near-ish and never travel to the other parts.

Obviously that is true of the multi-city urban agglomerations (the 3rd category) that you keep mentioning as well, but this is not under debate.

[bellason]

Hypothetically, the response is yes-there is no restriction to the size of urban areas. The normal city in the U.S. sees a populace change of 5 - 7% each year. Every one of the urban communities on this rundown became by at minimum 4.5%. To more readily envision this change, Delaware Online/The News Journal utilized satellite symbolism to recognize regions that have seen a critical turn of events. Here is an example of that change.

Westmont, New Castle County

Middletown, New Castle County

Middletown, New Castle County

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by 10023

You keep ignoring the points that others are making, and failing to properly distinguish between monocentric cities, polycentric cities, and megalopoli.

There are 3 categories here, not 2.

The Rhein-Ruhr region, or the Midlands conurbation in England, or Washington-Baltimore, are not “polycentric cities” but agglomerations of multiple cities. The Bay Area even fits this definition (but is more constrained by geography).

Tokyo, London or Los Angeles ARE polycentric cities with multiple commercial/financial centers. These contrast with a city like Chicago, which is truly monocentric.

I.e., one can live in London and commute from Essex into Liverpool Street, work in the City, party in Shoreditch, etc and never set foot in the West End or Knightsbridge or Kensington & Chelsea, and vice versa. Downtown Chicago on the other hand is one large CBD.

The point I am making is that there is probably a practical limit to how big a truly monocentric city like Chicago can grow because it becomes inefficient. There is no limit to how large a Tokyo/London/LA polycentric city can grow because people don’t actually have to get themselves from one part to the other; you can work in one “node” and live near-ish and never travel to the other parts.

Obviously that is true of the multi-city urban agglomerations (the 3rd category) that you keep mentioning as well, but this is not under debate.

I'm not ignoring anyone arguments. I just don't count London as polycentric for the purpose of this thread.

It's very straightforward: you don't say London plus hyphen as you do for Guangzhou-Shenzhen or Washington-Baltimore.

This thread is about how large a "city" (without hyphen) can grow.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Yuri

I'm not ignoring anyone arguments. I just don't count London as polycentric for the purpose of this thread.

It's very straightforward: you don't say London plus hyphen as you do for Guangzhou-Shenzhen or Washington-Baltimore.

This thread is about how large a "city" (without hyphen) can grow.

Those aren't cities. They are agglomerations of multiple cities, or "metropolitan areas", but a metro area is not a city. That's why you use a hyphen between the names of each individual city.

A polycentric city is a city (singular) with multiple centers. A monocentric city is a city with a single CBD.


Your thread title asks "How large can a city grow?" The city referred to is singular, and agglomerations of cities or megalopoli have nothing to do with the question.


But my answer is STILL that a city like London, Tokyo or LA can grow to unlimited size, because no one needs to be able to get to a certain part of it from anywhere and everywhere (because they are polycentric!).

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Yuri

I'm not ignoring anyone arguments. I just don't count London as polycentric for the purpose of this thread.

It's very straightforward: you don't say London plus hyphen as you do for Guangzhou-Shenzhen or Washington-Baltimore.

This thread is about how large a "city" (without hyphen) can grow.

Is your definition of polycentric a commercial hub that is in a different jurisdiction? I think the reason you don't see London-Westminster or something like that is because they've continually consolidated the city government under the umbrella of London. My senses does agree with 10023 that London is polycentric though, but maybe not as polycentric as the most extreme examples. I would say it feels somewhere between New York and Tokyo on the mono-poly centric scale.

I also agree with 10023 about Chicago being very monocentric. It's just about the biggest monocentric city that I can think of off the top of my head. But I also don't think we need to respect jurisdiction lines to identify whether a "city" is polycentric.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Is your definition of polycentric a commercial hub that is in a different jurisdiction? I think the reason you don't see London-Westminster or something like that is because they've continually consolidated the city government under the umbrella of London. My senses does agree with 10023 that London is polycentric though, but maybe not as polycentric as the most extreme examples. I would say it feels somewhere between New York and Tokyo on the mono-poly centric scale.

I also agree with 10023 about Chicago being very monocentric. It's just about the biggest monocentric city that I can think of off the top of my head. But I also don't think we need to respect jurisdiction lines to identify whether a "city" is polycentric.

London is polycentric because it has West End, City and Canary Wharf? All those are inside Inner London. Everything that "matters", the jobs, are inside Inner London, therefore making it monocentric.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by 10023

Those aren't cities. They are agglomerations of multiple cities, or "metropolitan areas", but a metro area is not a city. That's why you use a hyphen between the names of each individual city.

A polycentric city is a city (singular) with multiple centers. A monocentric city is a city with a single CBD.


Your thread title asks "How large can a city grow?" The city referred to is singular, and agglomerations of cities or megalopoli have nothing to do with the question.


But my answer is STILL that a city like London, Tokyo or LA can grow to unlimited size, because no one needs to be able to get to a certain part of it from anywhere and everywhere (because they are polycentric!).

So what's are you arguing then? This thread is about how big a city can grow (read the title), therefore excluding the hyphenated metro areas.

Arguing London is monocentric or polycentric doesn't matter. For the purposes of this thread, I'm counting it as a "city" and asking on how big such "type of city" can grow.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Yuri

London is polycentric because it has West End, City and Canary Wharf? All those are inside Inner London. Everything that "matters", the jobs, are inside Inner London, therefore making it monocentric.

Yes. Those are very distinct economic hubs that are located miles away from each other.

[Minato Ku]

It's not like there is a real break of density and activity between West End and The City.
Holborn is a dense central district. https://www.google.fr/maps/@51.51760...7i16384!8i8192
We could consider that West End and the City are part of the same urban core. And thus, this doesn't really create a multipolarity in London. It would just mean that London has a large core.

It's not the same for Canary Wharf, there is a real break between the City and Canary Wharf.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Yes. Those are very distinct economic hubs that are located miles away from each other.

No. They are all located in Inner London, a very small area inside 5,000 sqmi or so of London metro area.

If we go down to such a granular view, we should look to individual buildings then.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Minato Ku

It's not like there is a real break of density and activity between West End and The City.
Holborn is a dense central district. https://www.google.fr/maps/@51.51760...7i16384!8i8192
We could consider that West End and the City are part of the same urban core. And thus, this doesn't really create a multipolarity in London. It would just mean that London has a large core.

It's not the same for Canary Wharf, there is a real break between the City and Canary Wharf.

I agree here. The distinction between the City of London and everything west is more fuzzy than from the City going east to Canary Wharf. But I still get the sense that City of London and West End are distinct centers that have just grown into each other. This seems analogous to relationship between lower Manhattan and Midtown. On the other hand, City of London is not like Chicago's loop. Chicago's loop is unambiguous as the singular primary node for the city, and it feels like the entire city orbits it.

[10023]

^ this is correct. The City and the West End are like Downtown and Midtown, respectively (and that comparison is quite apt because the West End, like Midtown, also has the theatre district, the cultural institutions, the parks and adjacency to the traditionally upmarket residential areas). Canary Wharf is bigger than Jersey City, and a number of big banks are actually based there rather than just having back offices, but is that separate (most people working there arrive by the Jubilee Line tube, going under the river).

Places like Holborn, Farringdon and Clerkenwell are sort of a weird no man’s land in between the West End and City that most people are pretty unfamiliar with (though I like Clerkenwell, there are some good restaurants). Manhattan has a similar “gap” between Midtown and Downtown that is obviously still dense but not a CBD.

Originally Posted by Yuri

So what's are you arguing then? This thread is about how big a city can grow (read the title), therefore excluding the hyphenated metro areas.

Arguing London is monocentric or polycentric doesn't matter. For the purposes of this thread, I'm counting it as a "city" and asking on how big such "type of city" can grow.

Because I am making a distinction between how large a polycentric city like London or Tokyo can grow (which is theoretically as unlimited as your multi-city agglomerations), and how large a monocentric city like Chicago can grow (which is practically limited by commute times or ability to access amenities).

[10023]

Originally Posted by Yuri

No. They are all located in Inner London, a very small area inside 5,000 sqmi or so of London metro area.

If we go down to such a granular view, we should look to individual buildings then.

You’re being obstinate.

Physical distance doesn’t matter. Patterns of how people move within cities matter. People in one city might commute 20 miles to work by car, while in another travelling such a distance would be almost unfathomable and people who work in one district might never set foot in another just a few miles away. E.g., hit restaurants in London that start in Soho will often open another location in Shoreditch, or vice versa, because many people literally go to one and never the other.

For a guy with a Union Jack avatar, you seem remarkably unfamiliar with London.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by 10023

Physical distance doesn’t matter. Patterns of how people move within cities matter. People in one city might commute 20 miles to work by car, while in another travelling such a distance would be almost unfathomable and people who work in one district might never set foot in another just a few miles away. E.g., hit restaurants in London that start in Soho will often open another location in Shoreditch, or vice versa, because many people literally go to one and never the other.

Arguing about city growth limits is difficult because cities are political constructs. Suppose in the Year 2500 Chicago changes the state laws and annexes the rest of the state of Illinois? Politically, it’s very possible and would make the theoretical limit very large indeed.

Using commuting zones and CBDs is also debatable, because the boundaries are fuzzy and don’t really account for decentralized employers like manufacturers. Reverse commuting, super-commuting, zooming, etc. can also create limitless cities. If the main CBD reaches its limits, a city can build new transportation routes to create a supporting node.

I would use infrastructure to estimate possible limits. Cities are basically corporations that exist to provide certain unified utilities, transportation, and other such services that can’t scale infinitely.

Water and sewage connections are really excellent to distinguish the core city from exurbs and satellite cities. Gas, Public Transit, Electric and Internet are also useful.


https://www.cmap.illinois.gov/2050/d...t/water-supply


https://www.researchgate.net/figure/..._325812868/amp


https://www.researchgate.net/figure/..._257935537/amp

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by Minato Ku

Rhine-Ruhr is an area of several cities close to each other that grew independently of each other.
There isn't a core that dominate because it never was a single city that fueled the growth of a region. It's not a single market.
People don't settle to Duisbourg to work in Essen or Düsseldorf. It's not a single market area. I would say it's not a city but several cities close to each other.

The result is that despite a 11 million inhabitants population, the regional Rhine-Ruhr. S-bahn only carries something like 130 million passengers annual passengers.
That's less than the S bahn of Munich or Frankfurt despite being in less populated region.
People don't commute that far and don't need to use the S-Bahn.

To put thing in perspective, Paris RER/suburban network has a ridership 10 times higher than Rhine-Ruhr S-Bahn.

We have to ask a question, what is a city and what is a metropolitan area? This question is even more important in very dense region or countries where cities can be very close to each other or even touching each and yet still working independently.
I would never say that Rhine-Ruhr is a bigger city than Madrid because I don't considere Rhine-Ruhr to be a single city.

I would say the same about Randstad in Netherlands or Pearl River Delta in China.
Even Philalephia and New York City. Those are clearly two separate cities and two separate markets even if the sprawl means that their urban areas are merging.

Excellent points.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Tokyo has 40 million inh. Rhine-Ruhr, only 11 million so what's regarded "inner city" is much bigger in Tokyo.

Tokyo 23 special wards are pretty much "central Tokyo" and Yokohama-Kawasaki is adjacent to it.

So the Kanto region grew big enough for the suburbs to merge. There’s a reason it was referred to as Tokyo-Yokohama for years.

Also, to compare to London, if central Tokyo were placed over central London downtown Yokohama and downtown Chiba would both be outside the M25. Now, Yokohama’s municipal borders do go sort of near to the prefecture of Tokyo, sure, but that’s just because it’s one of the largest municipalities by area in Japan. Like, a good quarter of Kanagawa prefecture is the city of Yokohama.

As further proof of Yokohama being a distinct node, its subway system and Tokyo’s do not touch.