HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted May 16, 2017, 7:28 PM
Jonesy55 Jonesy55 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
So is London as we all know it, technically called "Greater London"?
Yeah, that's pretty much the definition everybody here uses. The former county of London was expanded in the 1960s to incorporate parts of surrounding counties which had become part of the urbanized area, but not the distinct and separated towns which were part of the commuter belt even back then, more so today.

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

The County of London was 117sqm compared with 606sqm for the current Greater London.

Much of Greater London it's suburban in nature, but then so are parts of NYC (Staten Island for example), there is no apples to apples comparison between the two based on any legal boundaries I would agree, and to me the most reasonable metro definition for London is the LUZ of around 13m people so on that measure it is several million behind NY MSA.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted May 16, 2017, 7:54 PM
The North One's Avatar
The North One The North One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by TorontoDrew View Post
Why are NYC's growth numbers so low?
Does it matter? New York is a fully developed global city. Why does it need to grow rapidly? The city being in cruise mode is a good thing.
__________________
Spawn of questionable parentage!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted May 16, 2017, 8:02 PM
nito nito is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuriandrade View Post
London just overtook New York in population (city proper). When do you think they will ever overtake New York on metro population (Southeast England vs CSA)?

In a 75 km radius, from Midtown and Charing Cross, live 18.7 million people and 16.3 million respectively.
There isn’t a straight forward answer because there is a fundamental issue in applying North American definitions of metro areas to London. Seventy years ago, planners and politicians took the radical decision to create the Metropolitan Green Belt around London; this is a vast area – five times the size of London – that preserves the countryside in (as the below photos demonstrate) and around London.


Photo taken by Mal B on Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/mal-b/6785458123/sizes/l


Photo taken by alexcatalps on Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/ajayme...496065/sizes/l

By restricting sprawl, the development of London and its surrounding environment drastically deviated from that of its North American peers, and as a consequence its urban footprint has barely enlarged over the past seven decades. Development has of course materialised (in former market towns, new towns, expanded villages, and so forth), and typically along the vast commuter rail network that radiates out from the city.


Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post
What is fueling this London population growth? City is adding so much. So expensive, yet adding so much?

I could ponder that its international migration fueling the growth or is it more domestic?
International migration is a big driver, but net natural change is also a big component. Domestic migration is negative. The following chart is for London and the two regions that surround London (the South East and East).


Source: Office for National Statistics, https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...imates/mid2015


Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
Now, what is true is that while London is now more populous than NYC, its metro area will never become larger. London covers about 600 square miles to NYC's roughly 350 square miles, so it is bound to have more people (even though much more of it is given over to parkland and open space). But it also represents a much larger share of the metro area than NYC proper, and NYC is denser.

One of the key differences is that NYC has a big physical barrier (the Hudson River) directly adjacent to its core business districts. If you added another ~250 square miles of New Jersey directly across the river from Manhattan (which would mean Hudson County and about 80% of Bergen County), then NYC would cover the same physical area as London but its population would be about 10 million people.

It is actually quite possible than London will add another 1.5 million or so residents eventually, to have the same population as NYC within 600 square miles. What it will never have is the continuous urban sprawl up 2/3 of the length of Long Island, into northern NJ, and up coastal Connecticut.
There are only two ways that London could have a larger metro area using traditional US methodology:
- Astronomical population growth beyond the current very high rate in the present restricted urban area, or
- Abolishing the Green Belt, encouraging sprawl and enlarging the urban area footprint by linking up currently isolated urban settlements.

Neither of those two are likely, nor would they be desirable for a lot of reasons. The Green belt undoubtedly has flaws, but as a very keen cyclist, I relish the ability to cycle on isolated country lanes in under thirty minutes, something implausible in many large North American cities because of sprawl.

Also, whilst you are indeed correct that London covers a larger area than New York, it is important to stress just how much of that is undeveloped and likely to stay that way. The Green Belt (i.e. not parkland or other green spaces) alone accounts for close to a quarter, or 136 sq. miles of London’s area.

As for future population growth, that is dependent on a variety of factors, but estimates from two years ago place London’s population surpassing the 9 million mark sometime during 2019.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mrnyc View Post
the river has nothing to do with anything about that. nyc will never be able to grow physically in area as london has from the 1960s-2000 (and could do again anytime in the future). in fact, if anything, its the opposite in nyc as it is more likely to lose staten island to nj someday.
The administrative boundaries of London have changed since WW2, but the majority of its physical form had been developed before then. As noted above, the Green Belt put a stop to sprawl, and at some points quite literally in its tracks as demonstrated by the abandoned Northern Line extension (picture below is of Brockley Hill station which never opened) which would have enabled new urban sprawl development, but found itself in the newly formed Green Belt, and thus redundant.


Photo taken by diamond geezer on Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/dgeeze...739454/sizes/l


Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
So is London as we all know it, technically called "Greater London"?
Correct. The City of London which is the original Roman settlement of Londinium still exists, but is now just the financial district of London; the main Central Activity Zone is to the west, focused around the West End in the also confusingly named City of Westminster. The technical centre of London (from which all distances are judged) is also not in the City of London. (Greater) London has its own mayor, city hall, assembly, transport organisation, police force, etc...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
But, given that Brexit is a reality, it would be extremely foolish to assume London's incredible recent growth would continue. As everyone knows, its bedrock industry will disperse somewhat and its immigrant flows will be restricted and the UK is untethered from Europe. London basically grows because of financial services and immigration. Its growth rates going forward will probably be slow and steady, like on the Continent, as its advantages have been eliminated.
Brexit is certainly an uncertainty factor but there is more to London than just financial services, and it is highly unlikely that there will be anywhere near the exodus that some have proclaimed. On immigration, I think there are several reasons why we won’t see a massive regression despite Brexit. The UK already has full control over non-EU migration and that is in very high figures, the UK also isn’t closing up shop, it is opting for a different relationship with the EU, and there is a massive demand for labour that is unlikely to evaporate.
__________________
London Transport Thread updated: 2017/11/06
London Stadium & Arena Thread updated: 2017/11/06
London General Update Thread updated: 2017/11/06
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted May 16, 2017, 9:02 PM
dc_denizen's Avatar
dc_denizen dc_denizen is offline
Selfie-stick vendor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 4,718
If you add Hudson, Essex, union, and southern Bergen counties, this is an urban area of about what, 2 million people. This is a contiguous part of NY, same as Lambeth is a part of London. Add the inner urban area of west Chester and Nassau and New York is a city of around 11 million.

The inner suburbs of New York like Nassau, north nj, and west Chester /inner Fairfield county are not sprawl, but rather a combination of dense postwar tract housing, 19th century towns and cities that eventually grew suburbs and merged. The population living here is around 7 million. You see areas like this in the outer regions of London (similar built environment etc)

The sprawl, accounting for only amount 1 million of the urban areas population but substantial part of its land area, is mostly forested (few farms).London is fortunate to have a green belt instead of this component of low density sprawl.

However when comparing apples to apples of urban areas with similar densities, New York is around 18 million people, a much larger city than London at around 12 or 13 million.
__________________
Joined the bus on the 33rd seat
By the doo-doo room with the reek replete
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted May 16, 2017, 9:40 PM
JoninATX JoninATX is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The ATX
Posts: 2,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasPlaya View Post
Christ.... the NYC folks with their panties in a wad over not being the greatest ever with London winning in some sort of metric.....

I still can't put my finger on how or why Houston is having such high population growth aside from immigration as Houston is barely above stagnant economically.
Wondering about that myself. I had several friends recently moved from the Temple - Killeen area to Houston without any sort of problems in getting hired. Of course they are in the restaurant business so could be that Houston economy isn't all doom & gloom as most people anticipated?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted May 16, 2017, 10:11 PM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 14,650
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
I never referred to the City of London, which is also not an apples-to-apples comparison.

There is no apples-to-apples comparison with NYC. The City of London would be a silly comparison, and Greater London would be a silly comparison. One is essentially a neighborhood, and the other is a metropolitan governing structure.

I agree that Greater London is a less silly comparison, but still not reasonable. Half of Greater London is suburban or semi-rural, and it is legally a region, not a city. 9% of Greater London is farmland.

IMO the most reasonable comparison is metro-to-metro, so at least you can form some rough analogy. Most people peg London's MSA/CSA in the 12-16 million range or thereabouts, so it's extremely unlikely, even discounting Brexit, to assume a doubling of population in our lifetimes, while other metro areas around the world stagnate.

But, given that Brexit is a reality, it would be extremely foolish to assume London's incredible recent growth would continue. As everyone knows, its bedrock industry will disperse somewhat and its immigrant flows will be restricted and the UK is untethered from Europe. London basically grows because of financial services and immigration. Its growth rates going forward will probably be slow and steady, like on the Continent, as its advantages have been eliminated.
I don't agree with this at all. Greater London is a "metropolitan governing structure" in the same way that New York City is a "metropolitan governing structure". It just amalgamated later and took in more suburban areas. I mean let's be honest, Staten Island is just as suburban as anywhere in outer London and has huge swaths of open space.

You can never have an "apples-to-apples" comparison of cities if what you demand is that they have the same physical extent.

Anyway, like I said, London is bound to be more populous because it's bigger (and a real city, as opposed to similarly sized Houston), but metro London won't surpass metro NYC.
__________________
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Isaac Asimov
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted May 17, 2017, 12:15 AM
Crawford Crawford is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 14,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoninATX View Post
Wondering about that myself. I had several friends recently moved from the Temple - Killeen area to Houston without any sort of problems in getting hired. Of course they are in the restaurant business so could be that Houston economy isn't all doom & gloom as most people anticipated?
Houston is still probably growing despite economic difficulties because it's a very young population, with a huge cohort of child-bearing age. It's like the anti-Pittsburgh in terms of age distribution.

Also, the Houston economy isn't that bad. It's just much slower than in the past.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted May 17, 2017, 12:24 AM
Crawford Crawford is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 14,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
I don't agree with this at all. Greater London is a "metropolitan governing structure" in the same way that New York City is a "metropolitan governing structure".
NYC isn't a "metropolitan governing structure". It's a city proper; an incorporated municipality.

Greater London is a region, which is the highest form of British sub-national division. Its closest U.S. analogy would be a state (but, no, I don't think this makes much sense either).
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
I mean let's be honest, Staten Island is just as suburban as anywhere in outer London and has huge swaths of open space.
Staten Island isn't really similar to Outer London. Half the island is rather dense; the other half is mostly empty forests and wetlands. It isn't like with the distinct villages and agricultural land you see in Outer London.

It probably goes against stereotype, but I bet weighted density for Staten Island is fairly high. Most people live in urban neighborhoods along/near the North and East Shores.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted May 17, 2017, 12:52 AM
LMich's Avatar
LMich LMich is offline
Midwest Moderator - Editor
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Big Mitten
Posts: 30,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
NYC isn't a "metropolitan governing structure". It's a city proper; an incorporated municipality.

Greater London is a region, which is the highest form of British sub-national division. Its closest U.S. analogy would be a state (but, no, I don't think this makes much sense either).
It's really a rather unique amalgam. Sure, it's technically a region, but it's unlike other regions in that it retains a governing body, and that body is rather unique, itself, in that it functions like a district or county government does in the rest of England. Then below that you have the boroughs, which function as metropolitan boroughs/districts do in the rest of England, but with more limited competencies.

Yeah, to say it's an apples-to-oranges comparison with NYC is an understatement. NYC is a municipality and a city proper with a unitary government; its constituent boroughs have no legislative bodies and the borough presidents are largely advisory and ceremonial.
__________________
Where the trees are the right height
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted May 17, 2017, 3:01 AM
isaidso isaidso is online now
The New Republic
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: United Provinces of America
Posts: 7,761
Metros 1 million+


Australia/New Zealand - 6
Sydney 5,005,358
Melbourne 4,641,636
Brisbane 2,349,699
Perth 2,066,564
Auckland 1,495,000
Adelaide 1,326,354

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._by_population
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...nd_urban_areas

Canada - 6
Toronto-Hamilton 7,414,700
Montreal 4,093,800
Vancouver 2,548,700
Calgary 1,469,300
Edmonton 1,392,600
Ottawa 1,351,100

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tabl...emo05a-eng.htm

United Kingdom - 12
London 13,709,000
Birmingham 3,683,000
Manchester 2,556,000
Leeds-Bradford 2,302,000
Liverpool 2,241,000
Newcastle-Sunderland 1,599,000
Sheffield 1,569,000
South Hampshire 1,547,000
Nottingham-Derby 1,534,000
Glasgow 1,395,000
Cardiff 1,097,000
Bristol 1,041,000

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...United_Kingdom

United States - 53
New York 20,153,634
Los Angeles 13,310,447
Chicago 9,512,999
Dallas-Fort Worth 7,233,323
Houston 6,772,470
Washington 6,131,977
Philadelphia 6,070,500
Miami 6,066,387
Atlanta 5,789,700
Boston 4,794,447
San Francisco 4,679,166
Phoenix 4,661,537
Riverside 4,527,837
Detroit 4,297,617
Seattle 3,798,902
Minneapolis 3,551,036
San Diego 3,317,749
Tampa 3,032,171
Denver 2,853,077
St. Louis 2,807,002
Baltimore 2,798,886
Charlotte 2,474,314
Orlando 2,441,257
San Antonio 2,429,609
Portland 2,424,955
Pittsburgh 2,342,299
Sacramento 2,296,418
Cincinnati 2,165,139
Las Vegas 2,155,664
Kansas City 2,104,509
Austin 2,056,405
Cleveland 2,055,612
Columbus 2,041,520
Indianapolis 2,004,230
San Jose 1,978,816
Nashville 1,865,298
Virginia Beach 1,726,907
Providence 1,614,750
Milwaukee 1,572,482
Jacksonville 1,478,212
Oklahoma City 1,373,211
Memphis 1,342,842
Raleigh 1,302,946
Louisville 1,283,430
Richmond 1,281,708
New Orleans 1,268,883
Hartford 1,206,836
Salt Lake City 1,186,187
Birmingham 1,147,417
Buffalo 1,132,804
Rochester 1,078,879
Grand Rapids 1,047,099
Tucson 1,016,206

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tistical_Areas
__________________
World's First Documented Baseball Game: Beachville, Ontario, June 4th, 1838.
World's First Documented Gridiron Game: University College, Toronto, November 9th, 1861.
Hamilton Tiger-Cats since 1869 & Toronto Argonauts since 1873: North America's 2 oldest pro football teams

Last edited by isaidso; May 17, 2017 at 6:06 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted May 17, 2017, 3:37 AM
isaidso isaidso is online now
The New Republic
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: United Provinces of America
Posts: 7,761
10 Largest Metros in these 5 Countries
New York 20,153,634
London 13,709,000
Los Angeles 13,310,447
Chicago 9,512,999
Toronto-Hamilton 7,414,700
Dallas-Fort Worth 7,233,323
Houston 6,772,470
Washington 6,131,977
Philadelphia 6,070,500
Miami 6,066,387
__________________
World's First Documented Baseball Game: Beachville, Ontario, June 4th, 1838.
World's First Documented Gridiron Game: University College, Toronto, November 9th, 1861.
Hamilton Tiger-Cats since 1869 & Toronto Argonauts since 1873: North America's 2 oldest pro football teams

Last edited by isaidso; May 17, 2017 at 6:07 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted May 17, 2017, 8:09 AM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 14,650
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
NYC isn't a "metropolitan governing structure". It's a city proper; an incorporated municipality.

Greater London is a region, which is the highest form of British sub-national division. Its closest U.S. analogy would be a state (but, no, I don't think this makes much sense either).

Staten Island isn't really similar to Outer London. Half the island is rather dense; the other half is mostly empty forests and wetlands. It isn't like with the distinct villages and agricultural land you see in Outer London.

It probably goes against stereotype, but I bet weighted density for Staten Island is fairly high. Most people live in urban neighborhoods along/near the North and East Shores.
Greater London is governed by a mayor/council system. It's a city. I don't know how much clearer I can make that. The fact that boroughs are in charge of local services like trash collection and parking is irrelevant.

It is nothing like a US state. The UK does not have a local or regional government unit equivalent to American states (although with further devolution of powers, Scotland's government could increasingly look like one).

The "weighted density" for outer London boroughs is also dense. In fact it's almost certainly denser than Staten Island, if you exclude Greenbelt from from London and wetlands/parks from Staten Island. I'd be happy for you to visit and I'll show you around.

New York's additional density over Greater London comes from Manhattan, Brooklyn and the Bronx.
__________________
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Isaac Asimov
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted May 17, 2017, 8:21 AM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 14,650
Here's the portion of Greenbelt that sits within London:




And in context:




Note that's not all undeveloped land. There is plenty of development within the Greenbelt, but new building is somewhat restricted (though this is increasingly under pressure).
__________________
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Isaac Asimov
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted May 17, 2017, 8:36 AM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 14,650
As for what some of those outer areas of the GLA look like, here are a few which you can find on the first map in the above post.

Croydon:






Kingston (the big green space to the north is Richmond Park, and to the southwest is Bushy Park around Hampton Court Palace):





Heck, even Romford isn't entirely suburban:




The housing in these areas are generally Victorian rowhouses or semi-detached townhouses, so quite a bit denser than more of Staten Island or outer Queens. Only in the nicer parts of North London (like Barnet) do you get big family homes. That doesn't make it any less a part of the city than, say, Riverdale.


Here's the best photo I could find of St. George, Staten Island. It looks much like Kingston, although the surrounding residential neighborhoods are less dense:

__________________
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Isaac Asimov

Last edited by 10023; May 17, 2017 at 8:46 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted May 17, 2017, 11:35 AM
yuriandrade's Avatar
yuriandrade yuriandrade is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Never. And with Brexit, even less likely. The gap, long-term, will widen.

Also, the City of London didn't overtake NYC. Metro London overtook NYC, which is a different, apples to oranges political classification.
How so? New York (city proper, metropolitan area) barely grew since the 1960's. Southeast England almost reached a 2 million growth/decade. Moreover, England's demographics are healthier than Tri-State areas. London can rely much more on natural growth.

Brexit, despite being an emotional subject by some, won't impact Britain that much.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
I never referred to the City of London, which is also not an apples-to-apples comparison.

There is no apples-to-apples comparison with NYC. The City of London would be a silly comparison, and Greater London would be a silly comparison. One is essentially a neighborhood, and the other is a metropolitan governing structure.

I agree that Greater London is a less silly comparison, but still not reasonable. Half of Greater London is suburban or semi-rural, and it is legally a region, not a city. 9% of Greater London is farmland.

IMO the most reasonable comparison is metro-to-metro, so at least you can form some rough analogy. Most people peg London's MSA/CSA in the 12-16 million range or thereabouts, so it's extremely unlikely, even discounting Brexit, to assume a doubling of population in our lifetimes, while other metro areas around the world stagnate.
Farmland on Greater London, farmland on State Island.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted May 17, 2017, 11:38 AM
yuriandrade's Avatar
yuriandrade yuriandrade is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 392
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post
10 Largest Metros in these 5 Countries
New York 20,153,634
London 13,709,000
Los Angeles 13,310,447
Chicago 9,512,999
Toronto-Hamilton 7,414,700
Dallas-Fort Worth 7,233,323
Houston 6,772,470
Washington 6,131,977
Philadelphia 6,070,500
Miami 6,066,387
If Toronto-Hamilton is together, Los Angeles-San Bernardino, New York-Bridgeport, San Francisco-San Jose should be together.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted May 17, 2017, 12:08 PM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 14,650
Brexit will be a disaster for the UK, but it won't slow population growth or immigration, which means it won't slow London's growth. The UK is going to remain the fast growing country in Europe. It will just result in a poorer country with a larger proportion of non-white residents, as a larger portion of immigration comes from outside of the EU.

This is a post-Brexit vote article and projection:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...l-figures-show

http://www.ippr.org/files/publicatio...f?noredirect=1


The key is going to get Brits more comfortable with high rise or apartment block living. I am entirely against building on Greenbelt land, and also don't want to see rural areas ruined by sprawl. There are lots of abandoned rail yards and industrial land, or unremarkable postwar housing that can be densified around London.
__________________
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Isaac Asimov

Last edited by 10023; May 17, 2017 at 12:19 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted May 17, 2017, 1:29 PM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is online now
The Vomit Bag.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: The Tropic of Sir Galahad
Posts: 29,577
this thread has become a little bit too versy
__________________
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere.Elie Wiesel
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted May 17, 2017, 5:53 PM
muppet's Avatar
muppet muppet is online now
if I sang out of tune
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: London
Posts: 4,365
ohmigaaaawd Ive just dipped back into this thread....


okay the metro London stat is of of course ludicrous to suggest that people in Norfolk are still metro Londoners somehow. That is especially clear to Europeans, who don't much use metro definitions based on commuting, even though they do a lot of it, and from far distances.

However that is exactly the same case for NYC's just as ludicrously generous catchment area, which of course is based on the same commuting patterns. Also bear in mind if you read the smallprint this low threshold (as low as 6%) 'commuting' is not even into the central city, but into the next rural county along.

In terms of the physical layout NYC sprawls in low density, contiguous suburbia at first (giving it a bigger urban footprint that London), but soon into disparate super-low densities that are mostly greenery and open land. London however has the infamous Green Belt, a huge semi-urban, semi-rural failed monster that is high density development patchworked into protected land (there is no real 'belt', just a vast tapestry of carcentric commuter towns and villages).

If you look at a highlighted map showing urban areas (in pink - this is 2007, it will have grown considerably since then, by nearly 2 million), you'll see the density of the 'Green Belt' is not really that green, nor a belt, and that fits a density of NYC into it's 'countryside'. The hidden reality is that Britons suffer the smallest housing in the West, at densities 25% smaller than even the Japanese, though the large proportion of urban parks, and of course protected Green Belt land, hides the dense peppering/ density. Even from satellite the urban developments are hidden in the green morass, and need to be artificially highlighted to show their true colours.



The jury's out on whether the Green Belt has protected the environs from continuous sprawl, or just created a much larger semi-urban, semi-rural beast of carcentric dormitory developments.




^This is why people in Norfolk can just as (in)conceivably be counted into the London metro, the density and connections are definitely there, and only a small amount have to commute into the next county closer into London to be counted, just like NYC's metro. In short both definitions are unrealistic imo, not just inflated (for example what about the other 94% who dont commute???).

If you read between the lines there are two definitions of 'metro' here. 1. The contiguous city + immediate commuter belt, or 2. the much wider, much more lax catchment which is a large majority countryside, and the size of Belgium, and truth be told has very little to do with commuting into the contiguous city (2%).


In all honesty I perceive NYC to be the bigger city, as I would use the first idea of a metro. NYC would weigh in at about 17 million, London at 14 million. However the much wider second catchment would put London slightly ahead in a slightly bigger catchment area, where both cities top 20 million. The thing is England's 'countryside' is so dense (it fits 50 million into an area the size of Maine), the reality is there would be no boundary delineating the peppering density, that spreads throughout much of England. NYC has a more delineated format, and easier to categorise thanks to blanket sprawl (let's ignore the densities for the time being), but at the end of the day it's wider metro is based instead on only very scant commute patterns.

Last edited by muppet; May 17, 2017 at 7:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted May 17, 2017, 7:23 PM
muppet's Avatar
muppet muppet is online now
if I sang out of tune
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: London
Posts: 4,365
And if you want to compare the commute patterns of both cities they're remarkably similar.

Notably in terms of the outer metro. The very low thresholds of 1.5-2.6% says it all really, despite that doubling the catchment sizes of both cities, which add 4 million to NYC's contiguous population and a whopping 7 million to London's, thanks to high density countryside:

http://www.newgeography.com/content/...n-and-new-york


"Manhattan is a somewhat stronger draw to the suburban counties, with 18% of employees from the inner counties and 8% from the outer counties. The London CBD draws 17% of its workers from the inner counties and 5% from the outer counties. Despite the comprehensive suburban rail system in New York and both suburban and national rail system in London, comparatively few workers commute from beyond the outer counties --- 2.6% in London and 1.5% in New York "

Last edited by muppet; May 17, 2017 at 7:48 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:20 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.