U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-21-2013, 01:50 AM
 
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,683 posts, read 43,116,816 times
Reputation: 11862

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by valentro View Post

Also to the person that recommended Kolkata (Calcutta), ohhh yeahhhhh that one is easily in. It's by FAR and away the most overwhelming megacity I've ever been to in terms of density & congestion. On a whole different level, makes Mumbai feel like freakin' Charlotte in comparison.

Mumbai has a larger metro, 20 million, compared to 14 million in Calcutta, what makes Calcutta feel much bigger/crowded? Is it the density? I always thought Mumbai was the densest Indian city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-21-2013, 01:51 AM
 
Location: Upper West Side, Manhattan, NYC
14,304 posts, read 17,919,697 times
Reputation: 6255
Quote:
Originally Posted by memph View Post

Dhaka's densest district is Kotwali: Dhaka Kotwali Thana - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
At least, maybe... the data is 20 years old, Dhaka population has about doubled since and wikipedia doesn't have data for 7 districts. Sutrapur and Lalbagh were also above 100,000 ppsm in 1991.
That's insane. 263,000/sq mile and that's 1991. I wonder what it is today..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2013, 02:12 AM
 
Location: Tokyo, Japan
6,479 posts, read 7,708,485 times
Reputation: 7295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trimac20 View Post
Mumbai has a larger metro, 20 million, compared to 14 million in Calcutta, what makes Calcutta feel much bigger/crowded? Is it the density? I always thought Mumbai was the densest Indian city.
Mumbai has the densest single area probably and it used to be the largest as well (Delhi has recently surpassed it and will continue to widen the gap) but Calcutta is by FAR the densest of the three Indian megacities. The density it maintains and the populations it reaches is just on a whole different level than Mumbai & Delhi both. Calcutta is where I cut off, I had to hold hands with my little brothers and my mother there to make sure we didn't get lost in the crowd-- especially my little brothers. It seemed like if you lost someone there, you may never find them again. It was just extremely overwhelming-- even for Mumbai standards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marothisu View Post
Yeah. And it's possibly already at a "hypercity" too. If it's not, it'll become one pretty soon. It'll be interesting to see if Istanbul gets the 2020 Olympics (it's in the top 3 with Madrid and Tokyo) how big the city will be by then.


Here's food for thought. In 1980, its population was around 2.8 million. In 1985, just 5 years later, its population was almost 5.5 million. It nearly doubled its population in just five years. Then by 2000, it was almost 11 million, doubling its population from there in 15 years. It's pretty insane.

The city lately has been growing at 10% every 5 years. That means by 2020 it will "officially" be over 16 million if it's not already, and by 2050, at that rate it will be around 30 million people.

There has been an influx of people moving there from other rural Turkish cities, but also from Russia, Bulgaria, Iran, Germany, Iraq (i.e. Kurdistan), etc so who knows. I wouldn't be surprised to see a new influx of Syrian immigrants there as well escaping what's going on now.
That's pretty incredible actually, Turkey in general has one of the worlds fastest growing economies.

The growth level there makes our "sunbelt" region in the United States look like complete childs play. I'm not pro-growth so much as I am about pro-size. I haven't been to all of the worlds largest cities but the megacities I have been to Cairo, Calcutta, Delhi, Mumbai, Bangkok, New York, London, Paris, Los Angeles almost all of them have this sense of overwhelming aura to them that's unlike anything else.

Istanbul look to be gunning towards the worlds top 5.

Also someone else mentioned the population slowdown in China, it's not so much that as it is the second and third tier Chinese cities now capturing their larger counterpart growth. Places like Shenyang, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Chongqing are all taking over from where Beijing & Shanghai left off-- and even those cities are still moving along.

Last edited by Facts Kill Rhetoric; 01-21-2013 at 03:10 AM.. Reason: Forgot Bangkok.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2013, 02:26 AM
 
Location: Upper West Side, Manhattan, NYC
14,304 posts, read 17,919,697 times
Reputation: 6255
Quote:
Originally Posted by valentro View Post
That's pretty incredible actually, Turkey in general has one of the worlds fastest growing economies.

The growth level there makes our "sunbelt" region in the United States look like complete childs play. I'm not pro-growth so much as I am about pro-size. I haven't been to all of the worlds largest cities but the megacities I have been to Cairo, Calcutta, Delhi, Mumbai, New York, London, Paris, Los Angeles almost all of them have this sense of overwhelming aura to them that's unlike anything else.

Istanbul look to be gunning towards the worlds top 5.
Hah, exactly. Istanbul is like that. To be honest, I find the cities in the US utterly boring compared to it. When I came back to Chicago after visiting Istanbul for the first time, it felt incredibly boring. Granted, this was in early March and you know as well as I do that people are not out in Chicago in March yet (unless it's unseasonably warm out).

As this article points out, Istanbul is basically like NYC on steroids, and it's true. The energy of the city is incredible and unlike anything the US has to offer or even close IMO. Take the best times you've been out and about in some areas in Chicago, NYC, LA, DC, etc, amplify it by multiple times, and that is what Istanbul is like for miles sometimes all through the night. There is a lot of partying too and it will last until 8am the next morning. In Beyoglu, the street food is going strong at 5am on weekends. It's a very, very social culture. If you are young, living in the city and not outside doing SOMETHING, then you are considered weird.



http://catosdomain.com/?p=3696
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2013, 02:28 AM
 
266 posts, read 317,769 times
Reputation: 169
Someones probably allready said this but I believe the densest tract of land in human history was the Kowloon Walled City in Hong Kong, China that has since been destroyed. Estimates are at 33,000 to 50,000 residents in 6.5 acres. It was originally a Chineese miliatary fort that then became its own little world. They made the decision to tear it down in 1987 but it took until 1993 to clear all of the people out. It finally came down in 93/94. The place looked kind of creepy really. For some reason its not letting me post pictures but I suggest looking it up. I really haven't seen anything like it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2013, 02:29 AM
 
Location: Thunder Bay, ON
2,604 posts, read 3,596,189 times
Reputation: 1604
Quote:
Originally Posted by marothisu View Post
IMO it's all a moot point. We're talking about density. The very definition of density is how closely packed together people are. So of course. Istanbul is completely packed and pretty much any neighborhood you go to will be. Seoul might very well be dense in the "suburbs" too, but it all depends on how people have chosen to live and what the overall area is. Area wise, Istanbul is literally just under 9 times larger than Seoul.

This is a good idea of the population distribution of Istanbul (some populated areas to the west are cut out):



The only reason the overall density of the city is lower in statistics is because the entire district of Istanbul is considered the city pretty much. Therefore, outside of town you have a lot of open land and small towns that are technically part of the city. In most countries of the world, these aren't counted as part of the city. For some reason, Turkey does. Once you get out of the "city" there aren't that many places that are real populated (a few areas between 150,000 and 300,000). It greatly skews the numbers.

Most of Istanbul's "official" 13 million people live within an area smaller than the area of Seoul.
Well if we're look at the bulk of Istanbul, I don't think Istanbul has the edge over Seoul. Adding up Istanbul's denser districts that make up most of the city...
List of districts of Istanbul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
... if you sort by density, I took Beylikduzu and everything denser, I get 10.565 million people in 347 square miles. Seoul proper has 10.208 million people in 234 square miles. So although Istanbul is pretty dense by that measure, it's still not as dense as Seoul. Seoul's city limits are not perfect either by the way, they include some mountains and exclude some pretty dense places like Bucheon that are part of the urban area, but I don't think tweaking the boundaries would change the fact that Seoul's as a whole is denser. Basically, Istanbul has more contiguous high density, but the amount of high density overall is not necessarily greater (hard to say), and the overall urban density seems around 30% lower than Seoul's.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2013, 02:31 AM
 
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,683 posts, read 43,116,816 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by valentro View Post
Mumbai has the densest single area probably and it used to be the largest as well (Delhi has recently surpassed it and will continue to widen the gap) but Calcutta is by FAR the densest of the three Indian megacities. The density it maintains and the populations it reaches is just on a whole different level than Mumbai & Delhi both. Calcutta is where I cut off, I had to hold hands with my little brothers and my mother there to make sure we didn't get lost in the crowd-- especially my little brothers. It seemed like if you lost someone there, you may never find them again. It was just extremely overwhelming-- even for Mumbai standards.

That's pretty incredible actually, Turkey in general has one of the worlds fastest growing economies.

The growth level there makes our "sunbelt" region in the United States look like complete childs play. I'm not pro-growth so much as I am about pro-size. I haven't been to all of the worlds largest cities but the megacities I have been to Cairo, Calcutta, Delhi, Mumbai, New York, London, Paris, Los Angeles almost all of them have this sense of overwhelming aura to them that's unlike anything else.

Istanbul look to be gunning towards the worlds top 5.

Also someone else mentioned the population slowdown in China, it's not so much that as it is the second and third tier Chinese cities now capturing their larger counterpart growth. Places like Shenyang, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Chongqing are all taking over from where Beijing & Shanghai left off-- and even those cities are still moving along.
I wonder what factors caused so many people to cram into Calcutta. I mean it doesn't seem to have space constraints - if anything Mumbai, on a peninsula, would appear to face that problem more. Maybe there were historical reasons. My relatives have been to Calcutta and they were overwhelmed. My mother found New Delhi pretty overwhelming and this was 30 years ago.

Istanbul really is a dark horse. Never really thought of it as a 'mega-city', I always pegged it's metro in the 8 million mark. I guess I think more about it's architecture, history and culture it's size is irrelevant to me.

After a certain size, I don't know if having extra millions contributes that much to making a city feel larger/more vibrant or interesting. The mega-cities I've been to (metros of over 10 million) are restricted to Bangkok, Beijing, Tianjin, Chongqing, Los Angeles and New York, but that would ignore such prominent cities as Sydney, Singapore, Hong Kong, Houston, Washington DC, Boston, so obviously size isn't everything.

China is experiencing massive urbanisation so net population growth is largely irrelevant. It recently passed the 50% urban mark, same as the global figure. Shanghai/Beijing/Chongqing/Pearl River Delta are by no means slowing down, cities at all levels are just really growing fast in China. Still, the countryside is very dense, there are still 750 million Chinese people in villages, small towns, other rural areas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2013, 02:45 AM
 
Location: Upper West Side, Manhattan, NYC
14,304 posts, read 17,919,697 times
Reputation: 6255
Quote:
Originally Posted by memph View Post
Well if we're look at the bulk of Istanbul, I don't think Istanbul has the edge over Seoul. Adding up Istanbul's denser districts that make up most of the city...
List of districts of Istanbul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
... if you sort by density, I took Beylikduzu and everything denser, I get 10.565 million people in 347 square miles. Seoul proper has 10.208 million people in 234 square miles. So although Istanbul is pretty dense by that measure, it's still not as dense as Seoul. Seoul's city limits are not perfect either by the way, they include some mountains and exclude some pretty dense places like Bucheon that are part of the urban area, but I don't think tweaking the boundaries would change the fact that Seoul's as a whole is denser. Basically, Istanbul has more contiguous high density, but the amount of high density overall is not necessarily greater (hard to say), and the overall urban density seems around 30% lower than Seoul's.
Istanbul and Seoul are very similar, I'll give you that. I'm talking about Seoul itself, not the outlying areas. The point is that Istanbul has a larger area, but most of the people live in an area much smaller than Seoul. They are very similar places IMO and yeah Seoul might have a little more, but I'd say they're pretty similar for where a lot of people work. Also, some of the numbers and rankings on the wiki page are slightly off. There are sources from Turkstat you can stitch together to get a little bit more accurate picture.


Also, I was reading around and found that apparently the city's population might very well be closer to 16-20 million people. APPARENTLY, millions of people who are originally from smaller Turkish cities will register with the census in those towns for more funding. This is why the official census is off..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2013, 02:53 AM
 
Location: Thunder Bay, ON
2,604 posts, read 3,596,189 times
Reputation: 1604
Maybe the Chinese cities aren't slowing down yet, but I doubt China's urban population will double since that would mean the countryside/small towns would be almost completely abandonned... At the rate Chinese cities are growing now, and by rate, I don't even mean %growth/year but just net growth/year, they will have to slow down betwen now and 2050. At the rate the cities are growing now, they will roughly double in population by 2050.

This seems more likely.


That graph still shows solid urban growth for several decades in China, but it will still slow down. And I'm not even convinced it will grow as fast as that graph suggests, which involves a population that is 75% urban by 2050, which is almost as fast as Canada's "official" numbers... although Canada's numbers include a lot of small towns and cities that would likely be considered rural by China (and are less dense than Chinese villages). Also, I think Chinese agriculture production depends on quite a bit more labour input than Canadian agriculture so I'm not convinced they'll manage with such a low rural population.

Mumbai has a density limit of 1.33 FSI... although it seems like neighbourhoods built before the limit was imposed were quite a bit denser. Also, while Mumbai has some major slums, doesn't it also have some significant middle class areas (I haven't been to Mumbai)? What areas of Mumbai did you visit valentro? Middle class/tourist areas or did you go to poor areas too?

Last edited by memph; 01-21-2013 at 03:03 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2013, 03:10 AM
 
Location: Tokyo, Japan
6,479 posts, read 7,708,485 times
Reputation: 7295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trimac20 View Post
I wonder what factors caused so many people to cram into Calcutta. I mean it doesn't seem to have space constraints - if anything Mumbai, on a peninsula, would appear to face that problem more. Maybe there were historical reasons. My relatives have been to Calcutta and they were overwhelmed. My mother found New Delhi pretty overwhelming and this was 30 years ago.
Yeahhh Delhi is a huge atmosphere too. The one thing with it is that it feels a bit more spread out than Mumbai & Calcutta. Like for example, some of the buildings you'd find in Calcutta to be attached for miles on end, in Delhi there are medians with grass and flowers and spacing. Although it's absolutely the larger place, it also feels more sprawled out too.

Calcutta is on the banks of a river delta that's prone to flooding to an extreme, they build to where each quadrant of the city is packed around that delta. It leads to the city being incredibly condensed with the rivers diverging in multiple sections. Delhi in contrast has an infinite amount of room with no flood zones (major ones at least) to worry about while Mumbai is able to develop more singularly within the peninsula before mountains begin bisecting it towards the outer ring. Calcutta in contrast has to develop on land parcel condensely, then there's the river, then more land with dense development, then another river. The rivers function as a barrier of sorts.

Dhaka is like this as well but on steroids, it's the larger population center as well as the deltas being significantly larger with more flood prone regions throughout. I also believe Karachi is like this too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trimac20 View Post
Istanbul really is a dark horse. Never really thought of it as a 'mega-city', I always pegged it's metro in the 8 million mark. I guess I think more about it's architecture, history and culture it's size is irrelevant to me.
Yeahh those things come to mind for me as well for Istanbul but lately I've been veering off and looking some of these cities up and my goshh-- the place is condensed as hell and the amount of foot traffic is nothing short of overwhelming. I've seen some of the areas closest to the isthmus and they look hella condensed with some of the narrowest streets I've seen out of anywhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trimac20 View Post
After a certain size, I don't know if having extra millions contributes that much to making a city feel larger/more vibrant or interesting. The mega-cities I've been to (metros of over 10 million) are restricted to Bangkok, Beijing, Tianjin, Chongqing, Los Angeles and New York, but that would ignore such prominent cities as Sydney, Singapore, Hong Kong, Houston, Washington DC, Boston, so obviously size isn't everything.
Yeahh I agree, size isn't everything. I also think it works well for some cities and wouldn't work as well with others. New Orleans for example, if it were the size of a Dallas-- it would tarnish it's "charm" and character. That city has a personality that can only work with it's relative size right now.

Ohhh yeah I forgot Bangkok, that's another megacity I've been to. I agree size isn't everything but the way I see it-- it really helps give off an almost endless vibe.

Another thing is, for example most of these cities have quite a few pockets of activity, with the relative size-- just imagine even 1% of the people from any given megacity being in that corridor by either commuting to it or visiting it at a whim, that's a large sum of population in general. It creates such a populous environment altogether.

In the United States, Los Angeles would fit this mold. It's given size and it's diaspora of attractions lends to the city having multiple active nodes whether it's Downtown, Koreatown, Chinatown, Venice Beach, Hollywood.

I also agree with the second statement too, I'm bipolar with my likes in places. Each one has something that appeals to me-- the things megacities pull off I wouldn't expect Boston or Houston to. What I cherish out of Boston is that modern yet storied ecclectic environment, out of Houston that socially integrated and plentiful breathing room diverse environment. In Houston, in downtown-- you'll be king, the sense of the city will feel like it's your playground, all yours and nobody elses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trimac20 View Post
China is experiencing massive urbanisation so net population growth is largely irrelevant. It recently passed the 50% urban mark, same as the global figure. Shanghai/Beijing/Chongqing/Pearl River Delta are by no means slowing down, cities at all levels are just really growing fast in China. Still, the countryside is very dense, there are still 750 million Chinese people in villages, small towns, other rural areas.
Yeahhh China is expected to add 400 million people to it's cities by 2030, it's a MASSIVE amount. More people than the entire population of the United States. I don't see anyone catching Tokyo (besides maybe Jakarta) anytime soon but China's going to keep moving along with it's rapid urbanization.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marothisu View Post
Hah, exactly. Istanbul is like that. To be honest, I find the cities in the US utterly boring compared to it. When I came back to Chicago after visiting Istanbul for the first time, it felt incredibly boring. Granted, this was in early March and you know as well as I do that people are not out in Chicago in March yet (unless it's unseasonably warm out).
I agree, any of these larger cities make Chicago look like a kid in comparison and also that it's activity/vibrancy drops off considerably in the winter time. Chicago begins feeling like a mega environment by summer time, to which I love it's infrastructure-- the wider streets come in handy with the large amounts of crowd in area like River North, Near North Side, Magnificent Mile, Gold Coast areas. It's not so much "oh my gosh someone shoved my on to the street because the sidewalk I was walking on the side of was too narrow" like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marothisu View Post
As this article points out, Istanbul is basically like NYC on steroids, and it's true. The energy of the city is incredible and unlike anything the US has to offer or even close IMO. Take the best times you've been out and about in some areas in Chicago, NYC, LA, DC, etc, amplify it by multiple times, and that is what Istanbul is like for miles sometimes all through the night. There is a lot of partying too and it will last until 8am the next morning. In Beyoglu, the street food is going strong at 5am on weekends. It's a very, very social culture. If you are young, living in the city and not outside doing SOMETHING, then you are considered weird.
Yeahh Washington itself feels like a baby compared to Chicago, which in contrast probably feels like an infant's environment in comparison to Istanbul. The sheer density and the multiple corridors of activity in Istanbul probably place it in such a high position to Chicago.

That's the other thing about super dense cities that I envy from an American point of view, aside from New York these other cities in America shut down relatively earlier on in the night.

Now the sheer density, condensed environment, with multiple corridors of activity, along with the important ingredient of 24/7 environment is just a whole concept that as an American automatically overwhelms me. My absolute favorite thing about New York has always been the 24/7 environment-- which as it shows, I'm very nocturnal. If any of these cities are more vibrant late at night than New York: like say Tokyo, Istanbul, Seoul, Mumbai, so on then you can sign me up for wanting to experience one hell of a late night atmosphere. Mumbai, I know is a very late night friendly city in certain parts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by memph View Post
Mumbai has a density limit of 1.33 FSI... although it seems like neighbourhoods built before the limit was imposed were quite a bit denser. Also, while Mumbai has some major slums, doesn't it also have some significant middle class areas (I haven't been to Mumbai)? What areas of Mumbai did you visit valentro? Middle class/tourist areas or did you go to poor areas too?
Any of the areas/neighborhoods along the coast are becoming playgrounds for the upscale and middle class in Mumbai at this point and quickly too. I'm astonished everytime I go to Mumbai because the city is dramatically nicer each passing time (something I wish Delhi & Calcutta took note of). The outer fringes like Navi Mumbai and Thana are middle class havens but very dense suburbs. It's the middle areas of the city, away from the coast and away from the outer fringes where the suburbs are that are still in relatively poor quality. I used to live in Mumbai when I was younger for 2 years, on the outerfringes in one of the dense suburbs there.

Last edited by Facts Kill Rhetoric; 01-21-2013 at 03:18 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top