View Single Post
  #7  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2014, 10:23 AM
yuriandrade's Avatar
yuriandrade yuriandrade is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 466
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Brisavoine View Post
Well for example there exist no 2011 GDP figures for British regions/counties yet, so your London figure is only a guesstimate. Eurostat will publish regional 2011 GDP figures only next month or in March (some countries like France or Germany have already published their regional 2011 GDP figures, but not the UK, and I believe also not Italy). And as Minato Ku said, you take entire states (North-Rhine Westphalia) or entire swathes of a country (the south-eastern corner of England), which can't in any way be described as metro areas. It would be like lumping together the GDPs of everything from DC to Boston and describing it as a "metro area".
I've addressed this issue. Only US and Brazilian are meant to be called metro areas in the strict sense. The others might or might not.


Quote:
Originally Posted by New Brisavoine View Post
We've already had this discussion. Most of Moscow Oblast is essentially forests and bogland. The area where urbanization and industry is concentrated is in Moscow proper and immediately around it, i.e. an area not larger than the São Paulo metro area as pictured on the map.
By your definition, Moscow area is 7 times larger than São Paulo which show clearly they're not comparable. You said it's only forests, but it doubles Moscow's population. Your definition of São Paulo metro area, today, don't even comprises the whole urban area. I guess you just picked up official definitions, that will never be changed as it has its meaning by this point.
Reply With Quote