Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,994,819 times
Reputation: 7333
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by DANNYY
The question really is what about Washington DC-Baltimore? What will it be called? Dallas-Fort Worth? San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland?
For those, and I think they can already be thought of in this way, they would be mini Megaregions and would never really truly be a megacity due to the fact there are multiple city centers with their own identity.
The only way I could see it happening if there was some sort of mega Greater London type of borough system used to combine those places into one solid city center.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,994,819 times
Reputation: 7333
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmac9wr
^^ Yea, but I think you could probably make the case for Los Angeles too.
I personally wouldn't think of Chicago as a "mega-city". I think only a handful of cities could be considered "mega": New York, Tokyo, Shanghai, Hong Kong, London, Paris, Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Mexico City, Beijing, Seoul, Moscow, Mumbai, Delhi...hmm...am I missing any?
Manila
Jakarta
Kolkata (Calcutta)
Karachi
Buenos Aires
Keihanshin in a way...but thats more like the Bay Area
As far as cities that will hit mega city status with in the next 50 years for sure:
Kuala Lumpur
Bangalore
Shenzhen
Hyderabad
For America, over the next 100 years, I am pretty certain one of the big cities in the South will reach megacity status....maybe.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,043,145 times
Reputation: 4047
In continuation, are people really that oblivious to facts that they cant do a quick 5 minute search on Google to see what it means before emptily bashing other posters of "propping Chicago up" I didn't even make this thread for Chicago. Made it for Baltimore-Washington DC, but of course that would fly under the radar with you prejudiced posters that go thread after thread looking for every line a person says and trying to accuse them of homerism.
It's a fact that Chicago will become one in a matter of a few years, 9.8 Million people, are you delusional or do you just not understand that all you need is 10 Million. Don't want to go off CSA's. Fine lets make this even harder, 9.6 Million people in the MSA, by next census it will be 10,000,000 people.
Now enough about Chicago and lets stick to the duo cities (THE CAUSE OF MY THREAD), Balitmore-Washington DC, Dallas-Fort Worth, & Bay Area. I thank the people who've had contributions to this thread. For others who aimlessly go everywhere to demean things, keep trying, one day you'll get there.
Wikipedia: What is a Megacity?
Quote:
A megacity is usually defined as a metropolitan area with a total population in excess of 10 million people.[1] A megacity can be a single metropolitan area or two or more metropolitan areas that converge.
You want to know the sad thing, I say things and keep it in the definition, I don't go out of my way to prop up the places I love (Unlike someone who keeps repping me every week saying "Urban Northeast"- what about it by the way? I know the god damn place is Urban) and its sad when a 20 year old (me) has to define and show proof for what they have to say. And get bashed for "biasly making definitions up". Yeah right, give me a break.
You think the term "Megacity" is one that is of prestige and honor and only New York City can have? Does that mean that cities in very poor countries, cities that look absolutely slummy that are defined by these terms are prestigious?
You're logic fails you, or perhaps its your bias. Either one, one of them fails you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waronxmas
For those, and I think they can already be thought of in this way, they would be mini Megaregions and would never really truly be a megacity due to the fact there are multiple city centers with their own identity.
The only way I could see it happening if there was some sort of mega Greater London type of borough system used to combine those places into one solid city center.
Yeah like I honestly haven't seen a case for a duo set of cities to reach this status, which is why if Baltimore & Washington DC do, its just strange to me what they'll officially be called. (Hence why I made the thread NOT to "prop up Chicago")
I totally understand what you're saying, is there any other example currently existing for this type of definition? Like somewhere else in the world.
Last edited by DANNYY; 11-03-2010 at 03:04 PM..
Reason: Tweak
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,043,145 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by HenryAlan
So given the definitions you've posted, Daniel, why are you even asking a question? You seem to have developed your own answers.
Haha this thread has gotten so derailed that the original question has been altered many times over.
Baltimore & Washington DC (also Dallas-Fort Worth & Bay Area) when they reach 10 Million people (not saying they will but hypothetically) will Washington DC be called a "Megacity" or will Washington DC & Baltimore be called "Megacities"?
It's honestly a very childish and basic question, very very very basic question that can be a fun debate. But its not, we have math, commuter patterns, all these wise guys who are here to professionally determine "what is and what is not" and so on and so forth.
That is my question on this thread, honestly that is all I'm asking, that basic question. I don't know where people get off to their own definitions and debate whether Los Angeles is one or not because by the definitions and by the statements from the UN, Los Angeles already meets it. Chicago will in the next few years.
That's all I'm asking the portion I put in underline, that is all. I'm not trying to go into a merry-go-round about what is and what isn't the entire thread is based off hypothetical situation for Baltimore/Washington DC, Dallas/Fort Worth, & Bay Area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJPhilliesPhan
Exactly, and Wiki is not a source BTW.
I know its not. That's why its only one of three I posted. Want me to get more? I'll go and get the United Nations actual definitions for you. One second, let me go and get it.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,994,819 times
Reputation: 7333
Quote:
Originally Posted by adavi215
I'm amazed at the low recognition of African cities when it comes to megacities. You have 3 strong candidates in Lagos, Cairo, and Johannesburg.
You know, I would place Cairo in the mega city realm.
Lagos, is close, very close, but not quite yet as they haven't really set themselves out yet on the global economic stage. There are somethings I've heard behind the scenes from people who operate in that world that should make things very interesting for them over the next few decades.
For some reason, I've never really thought of Jo'burg as a mega city, but I just checked and they sure enough have 10,000,000 people in their metro. I guess it's because they don't make a huge splash on the international scene. It's on my "must go" list though.
Baltimore & Washington DC (also Dallas-Fort Worth & Bay Area) when they reach 10 Million people (not saying they will but hypothetically) will Washington DC be called a "Megacity" or will Washington DC & Baltimore be called "Megacities"?
The answer is fairly obvious, isn't it? To be labeled as megacities, each would need to anchor a distinct metro of 10+ million people. It doesn't matter that there are two poles rather than one.
Are you basing this strictly on population? The L.A. area has more people than London, Paris, and Hong Kong.
In terms of Paris and London, yes Los Angeles is larger...but the cores of those cities are huge. The inner core of Paris is 287 square miles and has over 6.5 million people...a density of 22,727. While London isn't quite on that same level...its core too is extremely dense, with roughly 2.6 million in the inner 100 square miles.
Hong Kong is actually larger than Los Angeles in both terms of city proper and metro. The city itself is 426 square miles...though only about 10% of that actually has development on it. The city population is 7,061,200 (for a staggering 165,756 people per square mile). Hong Kong also shares a border with Shenzen, a city of 9,000,000 people itself. Not to mention Dongguan (6.5 million) and Guangzhou (over 10 million).
I don't necessarily think LA is a mega-city...but could probably be a mega metro.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
