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.
Ireland has only two cities with a population over one hundred thousand, New Zealand which has a near identical population, has seven.
New Zealand is quite a large landmass though split over 2 islands and is bigger in area than the isle of Great Britain.
The Republic of Ireland on the other hand is smaller than Panama, and although Dublin represents 47% of the national economy, Panama city represents 70% of national GDP! So it's still not too bad, Ireland is more or less on par with Chile in centralisation, proportionately speaking.
Question for the Canadians or those in the know. Oshawa conurbates with Toronto via Pickering. Is Oshawa considered part of Greater Toronto like Watford is to London or is it considered as totally separate like Southend-on-Sea?
Luckily, QuebecOpec now enters this topic to clarify things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pueblofuerte
Hence why I wrote city in "" speech marks and placed the word town right next to it.
I just didn't want to put 10th largest urban settlement in the title, doesn't quite have the same ring to it. Which Navan is by the way.
It is the anglo-saxon culture that distingushes between town and city, in other languages there is no distinction between city and town, and both are called the same.
It's artificial to draw a line and say that Navan is something below a city. I agree it is more detailed and delivers precious extra information. But then please, where are the extra nominal designations for cities of various greater sizes; 300,000 inh.; 1,5 million etc.?
Quote:
Originally Posted by irish_bob
Ireland has only two cities with a population over one hundred thousand, New Zealand which has a near identical population, has seven.
DON'T BE TRICKED by NEW ZEALANDs and AUSTRALIAs OVERSIZED & OVERSTATED CITY size and limits!
NZ only has seven cities over 100,000 inhabitants because they have a super-large area that incorporates land further away from the core, whereas Ireland has France-style narrow city limits!
In NZ, Hamilton is 877km² large - that's as big as Berlin by size, but Berlin has 14x as many inhabitants. In NZ the city limits are much larger than in Ireland. They are in general all at least 250km² large.
Limerick has 94000 inh. on only 60km². Galway has 70000 inh. on 54km². So NZ cities are by size at least 5x times as large as Irish cities! This makes comparison impossible.
In reality, if we adjust NZ city limits to Irish size, NZ would only have three or four cities over 100,000 inhabitants. (In fact, one or two would be around 100,000). So, the urbanization difference between NZ and Ireland is NOT big.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pueblofuerte
Question for the Canadians or those in the know. Oshawa conurbates with Toronto via Pickering. Is Oshawa considered part of Greater Toronto like Watford is to London or is it considered as totally separate like Southend-on-Sea?
Ireland is the least decentralised country in the EU, its the second least decentralised in all of Europe after Iceland.
Dublin is far more dominant here than London is to the UK economy.
Indeed! That shouldn't come as a surprise, though, since Ireland only has 4-5 million inhabitants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pueblofuerte
The Republic of Ireland on the other hand is smaller than Panama, and although Dublin represents 47% of the national economy, Panama city represents 70% of national GDP! So it's still not too bad, Ireland is more or less on par with Chile in centralisation, proportionately speaking.
Still not too bad? You have a very, very low threshold of centralisation.
I think Ireland is very hypercentralised - ultra-bad for all regions in Ireland outside the capital region.
Panama, as a developing country, has super-disporportionate concentration in its largest city - IF Panama becomes wealthier, GDP will be less extreme distributed.
Luckily, QuebecOpec now enters this topic to clarify things.
It is the anglo-saxon culture that distingushes between town and city, in other languages there is no distinction between city and town, and both are called the same.
It's artificial to draw a line and say that Navan is something below a city. I agree it is more detailed and delivers precious extra information. But then please, where are the extra nominal designations for cities of various greater sizes; 300,000 inh.; 1,5 million etc.?
DON'T BE TRICKED by NEW ZEALANDs and AUSTRALIAs OVERSIZED & OVERSTATED CITY size and limits!
NZ only has seven cities over 100,000 inhabitants because they have a super-large area that incorporates land further away from the core, whereas Ireland has France-style narrow city limits!
In NZ, Hamilton is 877km² large - that's as big as Berlin by size, but Berlin has 14x as many inhabitants. In NZ the city limits are much larger than in Ireland. They are in general all at least 250km² large.
Limerick has 94000 inh. on only 60km². Galway has 70000 inh. on 54km². So NZ cities are by size at least 5x times as large as Irish cities! This makes comparison impossible.
In reality, if we adjust NZ city limits to Irish size, NZ would only have three or four cities over 100,000 inhabitants. (In fact, one or two would be around 100,000). So, the urbanization difference between NZ and Ireland is NOT big.
Indeed! That shouldn't come as a surprise, though, since Ireland only has 4-5 million inhabitants.
Still not too bad? You have a very, very low threshold of centralisation.
I think Ireland is very hypercentralised - ultra-bad for all regions in Ireland outside the capital region.
Panama, as a developing country, has super-disporportionate concentration in its largest city - IF Panama becomes wealthier, GDP will be less extreme distributed.
The city of Hamilton has 165,000 people in an area of 110 km2, the 877km2 is the metro area, which is home to about 200,000.
It would seem NZ is much like Australia, in that the "city" area is often confused with the metro areas, which include large areas of farm land or national parks.
In Australia's case, the number of cities with more than 100,000 people would go from about 18 to 70 if the strict definition of the term was applied.
I
Largely because Sydney and Melbourne would be broken up into much smaller pieces.
Luckily, QuebecOpec now enters this topic to clarify things.
It is the anglo-saxon culture that distingushes between town and city, in other languages there is no distinction between city and town, and both are called the same.
It's artificial to draw a line and say that Navan is something below a city. I agree it is more detailed and delivers precious extra information. But then please, where are the extra nominal designations for cities of various greater sizes; 300,000 inh.; 1,5 million etc.?
DON'T BE TRICKED by NEW ZEALANDs and AUSTRALIAs OVERSIZED & OVERSTATED CITY size and limits!
NZ only has seven cities over 100,000 inhabitants because they have a super-large area that incorporates land further away from the core, whereas Ireland has France-style narrow city limits!
In NZ, Hamilton is 877km² large - that's as big as Berlin by size, but Berlin has 14x as many inhabitants. In NZ the city limits are much larger than in Ireland. They are in general all at least 250km² large.
Limerick has 94000 inh. on only 60km². Galway has 70000 inh. on 54km². So NZ cities are by size at least 5x times as large as Irish cities! This makes comparison impossible.
In reality, if we adjust NZ city limits to Irish size, NZ would only have three or four cities over 100,000 inhabitants. (In fact, one or two would be around 100,000). So, the urbanization difference between NZ and Ireland is NOT big.
Indeed! That shouldn't come as a surprise, though, since Ireland only has 4-5 million inhabitants.
Still not too bad? You have a very, very low threshold of centralisation.
I think Ireland is very hypercentralised - ultra-bad for all regions in Ireland outside the capital region.
Panama, as a developing country, has super-disporportionate concentration in its largest city - IF Panama becomes wealthier, GDP will be less extreme distributed.
Superb detailed and comprehensive explanation of how different countries classify cities. Did not know that about new Zealand.
Ireland is extremely Dublin centric due to our economies disproportionate reliance on multi national corporations, those companies have little interest in having their EU hq in a small city.
I think it's accurate to say that New Zealand has six cities over 100,000.
Continuous urban and suburban environments are the only real definition of town or city that matter.
The seventh area over 100,000 is Napier/Hastings, which has a few kms of farmland between the two towns.
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.
