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.
Native New Yorker here but I've never been to London or Paris so i'm going to have to go with Tokyo. LOVED it. LOVED every aspect of it. It's just a lively city and the people are so kind. I really like japanese culture as well, so it's definitely a plus to be in a huge city lke Tokyo. The downside is that it is indeed overcrowded.
Interesting point that the Japanese are renowned for their politeness, given that we've been talking a lot about the French here, and they're ... somewhat less renowned for their polite culture. This leads to the most amusing kinds of culture clash AKA The "Paris Syndrome"; from the link earlier:
Quote:
A recent global survey ranked Paris as the world's third most attractive city behind Sydney and London, but it came only 52nd out of 60 for friendliness.
Japanese psychologists have identified what they call "Paris Syndrome", when polite Japanese tourists suffer mental breakdown at the shock of being treated rudely by Parisian locals.
On average, up to 12 Japanese tourists a year fall victim to it, mainly women in their 30s whose high expectations of their first dream trip abraod are shattered by Parisien arrogance.
The Japanese embassy has a 24-hour hotline for those suffering from severe culture shock, and provides hospital treatment for anyone in need.
Paris tourist office chairman Jean-Claude Lesourd said: "We have been trying very hard for a number of years to improve the welcome that Parisians offer to visitors.
The reality is not so much the friendliness of the inhabitants but the reality of the city.
In Japan, Paris is showed as a small quaint romantic city when in reality it is a big busy 10 million metropolis.
A city much closer to New York City in feel than the little European towns that they imagine.
There are two way to avoid this problem.
Exclude everything that doesn't correspond to stereotypes of Paris (racial minorities, poor, traffic, most of the employments...) or the Japanese medias could change the way that they present the city.
What you state is correct, aside from a few problems.
1. Such statistical criteria are, themselves, far from consistently employed. By just varying the weighting of the inclusion criteria you can make metropolitan areas inordinately vast or dysfunctionally localised.
2. Used on their own, commuter statistics are generally poor criteria for representing the functions and operations of global cities that have influence far beyond their traditional regional boundaries.
There is truth to the idea that we should commit to the best of our available choices. However, metro vs metro comparisons are essentially epistemic operations. In other words, they have objective standards of necessity and sufficiency that exist regardless of limitations in our range of choices.
It follows from this that it is reasonable to use metropolitan areas for the purposes of administration and governance; but that we refrain from drawing any important conclusions from comparisons between metropolitan areas. That is, for so long as there is no global consensus as to how they are defined.
This is highly unlikely, of course, given the problems it would cause.
It is the best that we have and it does matter given the kind of development and investment money involved. You can toss up your hands in all this and say it doesn't drill down to every single detail and does not put everything on an entirely even plain--this is absolutely true and any reputable study would say as much. That being said, I'm not sure why you now need such fine-grained arguments now.
----
In their metro populations, the four cities in population are Tokyo, New York, London, and Paris. Tokyo is significantly larger than NYC, NYC is significantly larger than London and Paris, London and Paris are about equal. London and Paris measurements are available under the same methodology through Eurostat which have them off by a few hundred thousand.
Does anyone have a better ordering for these four cities's metropolitan areas? Does this not ring true for anyone?
,
Oh, well at least your've got a good argument why beijing is powerfull, but size doesn't equal power. But thinking about it most powerfull cities have a large populations
Right, I didn't make the direct argument that size is the same as power. Population size generally does matter, but is not sufficient by itself. I listed a lot of other reasons why Beijing is more powerful.
In their metro populations, the four cities in population are Tokyo, New York, London, and Paris. Tokyo is significantly larger than NYC, NYC is significantly larger than London and Paris, London and Paris are about equal. London and Paris measurements are available under the same methodology through Eurostat which have them off by a few hundred thousand.
Does anyone have a better ordering for these four cities's metropolitan areas? Does this not ring true for anyone?
London and Paris are difficult to compare. London's urban area is less populous but its suburban area outside of the contiguous urban core of Greater London is much more populous. If you add the Home Counties to Greater London you are already at 14m and the commuter belt stretches even farther. (eg places like Oxford and Cambridge, merely an hour by train from Central London, are outside of the Home Counties).
So if you compare urban areas that's unfair to London but if you compare metro areas then it's unfair to Paris. The paper from the Mayor of London linked above was taking the whole of Ille de France (pop. 11.5m) for Paris, but Greater London only (pop. 7.8m) for London, which clearly skewed the numbers on the various metrics in Paris' favor.
London and Paris are difficult to compare. London's urban area is less populous but its suburban area outside of the contiguous urban core of Greater London is much more populous. If you add the Home Counties to Greater London you are already at 14m and the commuter belt stretches even farther. (eg places like Oxford and Cambridge, merely an hour by train from Central London, are outside of the Home Counties).
So if you compare urban areas that's unfair to London but if you compare metro areas then it's unfair to Paris. The paper from the Mayor of London linked above was taking the whole of Ille de France (pop. 11.5m) for Paris, but Greater London only (pop. 7.8m) for London, which clearly skewed the numbers on the various metrics in Paris' favor.
Yea, there could be a lot of variance depending on how you count. I cited the eurostat LUZs because they are a conscious attempt to standardize how metros are counted within the EU and to some extent outside of it as well. On that count, both London and Paris are between 11 and 12 million without really that big of a difference. Eurostat hasn't tried to do a measurement of either Tokyo or NYC, but pretty much any attempt to measure metros has both of those cities much more populous and larger than both London and Paris (though things like the US Combined Statistical Area casts probably way too wide a net). For NYC, even if we took the arbitrary cut-off of London's LUZ physical area (despite NYC's tendrils spreading further), the population would be upwards of 15 million.
It is the best that we have and it does matter given the kind of development and investment money involved. You can toss up your hands in all this and say it doesn't drill down to every single detail and does not put everything on an entirely even plain--this is absolutely true and any reputable study would say as much. That being said, I'm not sure why you now need such fine-grained arguments now.
----
In their metro populations, the four cities in population are Tokyo, New York, London, and Paris. Tokyo is significantly larger than NYC, NYC is significantly larger than London and Paris, London and Paris are about equal. London and Paris measurements are available under the same methodology through Eurostat which have them off by a few hundred thousand.
Does anyone have a better ordering for these four cities's metropolitan areas? Does this not ring true for anyone?
Don't get me wrong, because I am saying that it is reasonable to use varying metro area definitions for political convenience given that it is the best available system. However, the fact that these delineations are necessary does not entail the idea that it is reliable to make comparisons between different metro areas.
This is because the reliability of these comparisons is not determined by either factor, but independent epistemological criteria.
Last edited by Citizen401; 12-17-2012 at 02:05 AM..
Yea, there could be a lot of variance depending on how you count. I cited the eurostat LUZs because they are a conscious attempt to standardize how metros are counted within the EU and to some extent outside of it as well. On that count, both London and Paris are between 11 and 12 million without really that big of a difference. Eurostat hasn't tried to do a measurement of either Tokyo or NYC, but pretty much any attempt to measure metros has both of those cities much more populous and larger than both London and Paris (though things like the US Combined Statistical Area casts probably way too wide a net). For NYC, even if we took the arbitrary cut-off of London's LUZ physical area (despite NYC's tendrils spreading further), the population would be upwards of 15 million.
Yeah I think it's clear that Tokyo and NYC are 1 and 2 in terms of population. NYC has close to 11m in the 15 mile radius around Manhattan (an area equivalent to Greater London), 15m in the 30 mile radius, and 17m in the 40 mile radius, much greater than London or Paris. And Tokyo - well that's a whole different level.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,060,466 times
Reputation: 11862
I wonder to what extent high speed rail, the Shinkansen etc has been responsible for the huge size of Tokyo and the Kansai plain region. I mean Tokyo is the centre of a metro area the size of Canada. For some reason, I've never thought of London as a 'megacity' but if 10 million is your definition Greater London has about 14 million, so it's probably the largest city in the EU in real terms. I wonder if high speed rail becomes more prevalent these megapolises will blur the distinctions between individual metros.
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.
