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.
But here we don't have a comparison of urban district, it is just London that divide its city in smaller unit, we have no data for Manhattan or for Ville de Paris West and note that this macro level figure can also be misleading depending the distribution of the job and the population. In exemple the center of Paris is much more populated than the center of London, so the ratio job/inhabitants will be lower. If the center of Paris has a lower GDP per capita than Inner London West, it does not means that it is less productive but just that there more people living in it compared to the number of job.
(City of Paris and Hauts de Seine department has a similar GDP per capita than Inner London).
The only good comparison we could do is at metropolitan area level and no matter the area you take for London, NYC has a larger GDP per capita.
NYC metropolitan area has a higher GDP per capita than Greater London and GL figure is already inflated by the many commuters who come work there (but much less so than Inner London West).
But here we don't have a comparison of urban district, it is just London that divide its city in smaller unit, we have no data for Manhattan or for Ville de Paris West and note that this macro level figure can also be misleading depending the distribution of the job and the population. In exemple the center of Paris is much more populated than the center of London, so the ratio job/inhabitants will be lower. If the center of Paris has a lower GDP per capita than Inner London West, it does not means that it is less productive but just that there more people living in it compared to the number of job.
(City of Paris and Hauts de Seine department has a similar GDP per capita than Inner London).
The only good comparison we could do is at metropolitan area level and no matter the area you take for London, NYC has a larger GDP per capita.
NYC metropolitan area has a higher GDP per capita than Greater London and GL figure is already inflated by the many commuters who come work there (but much less so than Inner London West).
Someone has actually already done the number crunching for commute patterns in Manhattan vs Central London (which is slightly more geographically exclusive than ILW), and they are pretty comparable if I remember. All I need to do is dig up the post, if I can find it.
Paris, as you correctly say, has a higher residential population, but we're not comparing London to Paris.
According to the London plan central London had a population of 1.525 million in 2001. The U.S. Census bureau has the population of Manhattan in 2013 at 1.626 million. If we can reference working hours population for both areas it might be interesting.
According to the London plan central London had a population of 1.525 million in 2001. The U.S. Census bureau has the population of Manhattan in 2013 at 1.626 million. If we can reference working hours population for both areas it might be interesting.
The NYC equivalent to Central London would be a lot more than just Manhattan. You would probably have to include all of Northern Brooklyn, Western Queens, and the waterfront neighborhoods in Jersey.
Manhattan isn't even half the size of Central London, and NYC is a significantly larger city than London, with an enormous core.
According to the London plan central London had a population of 1.525 million in 2001. The U.S. Census bureau has the population of Manhattan in 2013 at 1.626 million. If we can reference working hours population for both areas it might be interesting.
Has the Central London workday population around 3.26 million (going by the London Plan boundaries and 2013 figures). Including tourists, the total population is just shy of 4 million.
The NYC equivalent to Central London would be a lot more than just Manhattan. You would probably have to include all of Northern Brooklyn, Western Queens, and the waterfront neighborhoods in Jersey.
Manhattan isn't even half the size of Central London, and NYC is a significantly larger city than London, with an enormous core.
As far as I can see, if you include upper Manhattan they kinda seem to be vaguely similar in geographic size. This is just going by eye though. Someone might have done an overlay map or something to compare the two.
We don't care of the workday population, what matter is the number of job because GDP are calculated at workplace.
We just need to know the number of job and the residential population.
We don't have any GDP figure for Central London.
Remaining on the data we have.
Inner London West had 1,924,129 jobs for 1,122,662 inhabitants in 2013.
It is pretty easy to have a very high GDP per capita when the residential population is lower than the number of job but this give an inflated figure of the GDP per capita.
You just need to have the lowest population in your downtown and you will have the highest GDP per capita.
That's why accurate comparison can be only done at Metropolitan level and that's why the American census office don't provide the GDP at the small macro level like Manhattan or even New York City proper.
The only exception is Washington DC but it is because of the singularity of administrative limits (DC is its own "state").
Never compare the GDP per capita of city centers, this is useless and it has no meaning.
We don't care of the workday population, what matter is the number of job because GDP are calculated at workplace.
We just need to know the number of job and the residential population.
We don't have any GDP figure for Central London.
Remaining on the data we have.
Inner London West had 1,924,129 jobs for 1,122,662 inhabitants in 2013.
It is pretty easy to have a very high GDP per capita when the residential population is lower than the number of job but this give an inflated figure of the GDP per capita.
You just need to have the lowest population in your downtown and you will have the highest GDP per capita.
That's why accurate comparison can be only done at Metropolitan level and that's why the American census office don't provide the GDP at the small macro level like Manhattan or even New York City proper.
The only exception is Washington DC but it is because of the singularity of administrative limits (DC is its own "state").
Never compare the GDP per capita of city centers, this is useless and it has no meaning.
The NUTS III region Inner London West is pretty much the same as Central London minus Islington, Lambeth and Southwark, adding Hammersmith and Fulham and Wandsworth. Changing from one to the other amounts to little more than shifting the eastern and western edges a fraction of a mile west in some places.
Last edited by CTDominion; 06-29-2015 at 05:11 PM..
Reason: Misreferenced ONS definitions
We don't care of the workday population, what matter is the number of job because GDP are calculated at workplace.
We just need to know the number of job and the residential population.
We don't have any GDP figure for Central London.
Remaining on the data we have.
Inner London West had 1,924,129 jobs for 1,122,662 inhabitants in 2013.
It is pretty easy to have a very high GDP per capita when the residential population is lower than the number of job but this give an inflated figure of the GDP per capita.
You just need to have the lowest population in your downtown and you will have the highest GDP per capita.
That's why accurate comparison can be only done at Metropolitan level and that's why the American census office don't provide the GDP at the small macro level like Manhattan or even New York City proper.
The only exception is Washington DC but it is because of the singularity of administrative limits (DC is its own "state").
Never compare the GDP per capita of city centers, this is useless and it has no meaning.
That's not really true either. London defines its metro area differently to the U.S. system. More importantly, if you spread your inclusion criteria all the way out the farthest extents of the commuter belt, your data is muddied by the contribution of extra-regional businesses. It's not that unfeasible to get a purer measure of the city center contribution of GDP as long as you stratify your data accordingly to adjust for GDP per capita being inflated by residential population. I don't know why you insist that it's impossible or pointless. It's not.
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.
