Why Greater London is the "city proper"

[muppet]

Hmmm, that looks suspiciously like London to me, not NY.

You know what? it might not even mention NY.

[Jonesy55]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Also, hasn't greater london basically just now recovered in population to 1950's level of around 10 million? While New Yorks urban area has gone from 10 million to 18 million?.

Greater London has never been at 10m and isn't now. It peaked at 8.9m in 1939 then lost population to people moving out into the wider commuter belt until around 1980 when it dropped to 6.6m then recovering again until now it's back at 8.9m.

[nito]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Who care about MSA. What matters is urban area.

New Yorks urban area contains 19 million people. London, around 12 million.

This is based on contiguous built up urban areas above a certain density threshold, not commute share to far flung rural areas.

Why do either matter if the connectivity to the city at the heart of these agglomerations is constricted or convoluted to make worthwhile interaction limited? Close to one million people live in Bergen County, but there isn’t a direct rail service to New York City. Urban and metro area counts are a barometer of unchecked urban sprawl rather than providing qualitative measurement of activity between a city and the surrounding environment.

Only slightly more people commute into Manhattan from outside of New York City, than those that commute into Central London from outside London. It is conceivable that in the near future (due to faster surrounding population growth and higher investment in high-capacity rail infrastructure) that London could surpass New York on this measure.

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Really? which suburbs? England has what, 1000 people per square mile. I'm not sure you're familiar with NYC's suburbs.

In answer to your specific question, the counties of Dutchess, Hunterdon, Leigh, Morris, Northampton, Ocean, Orange, Pike, Putnam and Sussex in New York’s MSA have a population density below that of England.

I don’t really understand the confusion some people are having. After WW2, London enacted the Green Belt to prevent rampant urban sprawl. New York and other cities didn’t. As a consequence, urban and commuter catchment development beyond London materialised along different lines.

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

in the UK, it's sprawl separated by farms that peters out into rural areas.

The Green Belt focused – what would have undoubtedly become rampant sprawl development in the absence of the Green Belt – into enlarging and densifying new towns, garden cities, market towns, etc… that orbit London. Rural areas are the preserved space between these settlements, which was the entire point of the Green Belt. Even on non-Green Belt land, the idea of rampant sprawl is politically toxic.

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Also, hasn't greater london basically just now recovered in population to 1950's level of around 10 million? While New Yorks urban area has gone from 10 million to 18 million?

(Greater) London’s previous population peak was in 1939 at 8.6mn. After the war, government policy was focused on decentralisation and rehousing residents of Blitz destroyed neighbourhoods outside London, hence the new towns of Crawley, Harlow, Stevenage, Basildon, Slough, etc... The South East of England and East of England (the two regions surrounding London) subsequently experienced sizable population growth but starting in the 1980’s London’s population began to recover, and its growth has been accelerating ever since.

In 2015 London surpassed its pre-1939 peak. In 2016 the population stood at 8.8mn, and as of this moment it has probably surpassed 9mn.

London is currently growing by 123,000 p.a., compared to 78,000 p.a. and 57,000 p.a. for the South East of England and East of England respectively. The New York MSA and CSA are respectively growing by 77,000 p.a. and 82,000 for comparison.


Image sourced from Centre for London: http://essays.centreforlondon.org/is...on-projections

[nito]

Originally Posted by Docere

Yes, and I'm sure a few Home Counties would be "central counties" using US MSA criteria.

The issue is that the density threshold utilised by the US Census Bureau is quite low. As noted by muppet, if England was a single administrative unit it would be categorised by the USCB as one giant urban area because its population density is over the threshold.

Interestingly if we were to apply Office for National Statistics definitions of urban areas to New York, as an example everything west of the Hudson would be considered a completely separate urban area.

Originally Posted by xzmattzx

The City of London merged with the county to create the City of Greater London, correct?

Greater London was created in the 1960’s from the merger of the County of London and Middlesex, and the annexation of surrounding parts of Kent, Surrey, Hertfordshire and Essex. The City of London has semi-independence on historical grounds.

Originally Posted by xzmattzx

Are all the boroughs in London like boroughs in New York City? For instance, Brooklyn and Queens are part of New York City, but are separate boroughs from the original of Manhattan?

The 32 London Boroughs were created when Greater London came into existence. They have a greater amount of independence relative to their New York borough counterparts but operate within the broader Greater London framework. For example, a London Borough would maintain a residential road, but the busier or major routes would be maintained by Transport for London. As another example, each London Borough has its own planning department, but the Mayor of London has authority over strategic applications which meet certain criteria (150+ units, 30m+ height).

Originally Posted by xzmattzx

The City of London is the original borough?

The City of London is the original Roman settlement of Londinium and its area – two millennia later – is still defined by the location of the old Roman walls. Aldersgate, Aldgate, Bishopsgate, Cripplegate (now incorporated into the Barbican), Ludgate, Moorgate and Newgate aren’t just thoroughfares into the modern City of London but were the original gates in the Roman wall (hence the ‘gate’ part). The City of London isn’t a London Borough, and has semi-independence from Greater London affairs. It has a Lord Mayor, is managed by the Corporation of London, a Guildhall, its own police force (focused on combating financial crime).

Originally Posted by xzmattzx

Is Greater London a city, a county, both, or neither? For instance, New York City is a city and is also actually 5 counties, each county being one of the boroughs. Or, Philadelphia is a city that happens to be the entirety of Philadelphia County. Both are technically separate, but are really the same anyway. (An example of not quite completely overlapping is Indianapolis, which is the entirety of Marion County, except for Speedway, Beech Grove, etc.) Or, Baltimore is an independent city, not a part of any county, including a completely overlapping county?

Greater London is considered a ceremonial county, regional authority and city. Greater London and the City of London are considered two separate counties, but the City of Westminster (neighbouring the City of London) isn’t considered a separate county. London Parliamentary constituencies cover different areas from London Assembly constituencies. If you want to be confused even more, Inner Temple and Middle Temple in the City of London are technically liberties which grants them independence from the Corporation of London.

[LMich]

Originally Posted by nito

The issue is that the density threshold utilised by the US Census Bureau is quite low. As noted by muppet, if England was a single administrative unit it would be categorised by the USCB as one giant urban area because its population density is over the threshold.

Which is why if you're going to apply any American standards to calculating a metro in England, it makes sense to calculate metro areas like how they do in New England: New England city and town areas (NETCAs). Because of development patterns they use city-and-town-level districts instead of counties. I'd do the same for England, using districts instead of entire counties. Kind of surprised no one has brought this up yet.

[10023]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

greater london 1000 sq miles and 10M

nyc 300 sq miles and 8.5M

/thread

These numbers are incorrect.

Greater London is the City of London and 32 boroughs, governed by a mayor and an assembly, and it has just under 9 million people in just over 600 square miles.