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.
The urban areas which are comparable. The definitions of metropolitan areas differ, as the Oslo urban area is three times and the Stockholm urban area almost three times larger than the urban areas of Copenhagen and Helsinki.
Storstockholm (Sweden): 1,372,565
Hovedstadsområdet (Denmark): 1,246,611
Pääkaupunkiseutu (Finland): 1,104,749
Oslo Tettstad (Norway): 925,242
Storgöteborg (Sweden): 549,839
Tampereen keskustaajama (Finland): 321,481
These numbers seem small for some of them.
To me, Stockholm and Copenhagen are comparable to Vancouver in size. Oslo and Helsinki are comparable to the Ottawa-Calgary-Edmonton trio.
Nordic metro and urban areas have a rather large gap in population (sometimes by a factor of 2) while Canadian ones tend to be close to each other (at most a difference of 20-30%). I suppose it's because Nordic cities have more green space in between development and old towns nearby while Canadian cities tend to be continuous development and then stop?
For example, the town of Roskilde to the west of Copenhagen might be a separate urban area while within the Copenhagen metro area
Roskilde is not part of the Copenhagen metro area, actually. However it is part of the 'Øresundsregion' along with several Swedish cities (such as Malmö, Helsingborg, Lund etc).
Denmark is the size of county in Norway/Sweden/Finland, so if we would define our urban areas like they do, the entire island Zealand (Sjælland) would be Copenhagen. Which wouldn't make sense at least not to us Danes.
Roskilde is a nice city by the way. Really old. Beautiful nature (with Roskilde Fjord). When tourists visit Copenhagen, they always go north to Helsingør (Elsinore) because this is where Kronberg slot (the castle where Shakespears "Hamlet" takes place), but Roskilde is a lot more interesting in my eyes. When I am old and dirty rich, I'd love to live in Roskilde.
Last edited by TheDentist; 01-30-2015 at 02:18 PM..
Here are some Demographia 2015-01 urban area estimates (source) -- those have always felt about right to me when it comes to how big a city seems to be, except for a few exceptions:
i'm kinda suprised gothenburg had that much smaller of an urban area than oslo and helsinki. it's a very scattered city, so the perception might fool you.
parts of the inner-city is classified as rural, at least by eu-standards.
i'm kinda suprised gothenburg had that much smaller of an urban area than oslo and helsinki. it's a very scattered city, so the perception might fool you.
parts of the inner-city is classified as rural, at least by eu-standards.
It depends on the population measure.. Toronto for instance is 6.46 million according to demographia but if you look at the region it anchors - The Golden Horseshoe its closer to 9 million..
It all depends on which measure you use.. Demographia is actually one of the better lists i've seen from a global perspective and I like the urban nature of how they account for population..
Nordic metro and urban areas have a rather large gap in population (sometimes by a factor of 2) while Canadian ones tend to be close to each other (at most a difference of 20-30%). I suppose it's because Nordic cities have more green space in between development and old towns nearby while Canadian cities tend to be continuous development and then stop?
For example, the town of Roskilde to the west of Copenhagen might be a separate urban area while within the Copenhagen metro area
The reason is that Canadian cities are built from scratch on land nobody owned (except for the Natives maybe) while Nordic cities have thousands of years of constantly inhabited history entangled in endless ownership of land. Especially ironic that you mentioned Roskilde, as it's an important Viking city settled sometimes 900 AD. Turku outlives Stockholm, and though we got the German city rights in the 13th century, this place has been continuously inhabited and agricultured since 2000 BC at least.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDentist
Denmark is the size of county in Norway/Sweden/Finland, so if we would define our urban areas like they do, the entire island Zealand (Sjælland) would be Copenhagen. Which wouldn't make sense at least not to us Danes.
This is not true. Finland and Sweden use the French classification in defining urban areas. 100 or 200 metres without permanent inhabitants = the urban area stops.
Helsinki urban area is exactly the same m2 as the Copenhagen urban area.
The reason is that Canadian cities are built from scratch on land nobody owned (except for the Natives maybe) while Nordic cities have thousands of years of constantly inhabited history entangled in endless ownership of land. Especially ironic that you mentioned Roskilde, as it's an important Viking city settled sometimes 900 AD. Turku outlives Stockholm, and though we got the German city rights in the 13th century, this place has been continuously inhabited and agricultured since 2000 BC at least.
I figured that. So what that means is that Nordic cities are surrounded by old towns that became economically tied, while much of the land in between remain undeveloped. I suspect land use controls play a part.
You could have of old cities with their own history in their metro where suburban development is so extensive the urban are encompasses all of them. For example, for New York City continuing northeast along the Connecticut coast for 75 miles to New Haven is continuously developed. The census doesn't even count it as one urban area, it's too far away and economically separate. In 1900 or so, there were a string of small cities and towns along the Connecticut coast.
I figured that. So what that means is that Nordic cities are surrounded by old towns that became economically tied, while much of the land in between remain undeveloped. I suspect land use controls play a part.
You could have of old cities with their own history in their metro where suburban development is so extensive the urban are encompasses all of them. For example, for New York City continuing northeast along the Connecticut coast for 75 miles to New Haven is continuously developed. The census doesn't even count it as one urban area, it's too far away and economically separate. In 1900 or so, there were a string of small cities and towns along the Connecticut coast.
You're correct there.
But I don't think it's anywhere fair to compare NYC with any urban area here. The Bos-Wash area is a megalopolis, cities like Copenhagen are villages in comparison.
But I don't think it's anywhere fair to compare NYC with any urban area here. The Bos-Wash area is a megalopolis, cities like Copenhagen are villages in comparison.
Well since this thread is Canadian vs Nordic cities - you don't even have to go to the U.S here - The Toronto urban area would make nordic cities seem like villiages in comparison.. Any drive from Hamilton to the other end of Oshawa would demonstrate that.
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.