Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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)
 
Old 05-27-2021, 12:03 PM
 
10 posts, read 6,698 times
Reputation: 23

Advertisements

London is closer to 23 million now using CSA and to reiterate that area is continuous suburbanised land.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-28-2021, 06:10 AM
 
2,887 posts, read 5,108,748 times
Reputation: 3663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennine Metroplex UK View Post
London is closer to 23 million now using CSA and to reiterate that area is continuous suburbanised land.
Show your work. Or is Southampton a suburb of London now??
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2021, 06:44 AM
 
10 posts, read 6,698 times
Reputation: 23
Recognised in London corridors of power but just not formally recognised by public bodies that have not updated the growth of London since the 1940's. London Plan 2011:

"2.12 London is at the centre of a city region covering a large part of south-east England, home to 21 million people and some
11.5 million jobs. This is a rapidly growing and developing area; over the next two decades, a narrower area comprising London and the surrounding 30 kilometres alone is likely to see a 13 per cent growth in population, a
15 per cent growth in households and 13 per cent growth in jobs.2
2.13 London exerts a substantial effect over south-east England. It is inextricably linked with this wider region, whether looked at in terms of patterns of employment, skills and education, housing markets, town centres and planning for retail, airport policy, patterns of commuting, responding to environmental challenges like climate change, management of resources like water and energy, Green Belt, waterways and open spaces or the handling of waste."

Southampton not included. But I would include it, yes. No different to Tokyo doing the same or New York doing the same (correctly as these are continuous suburbs relying on the central area for everything and the highest value jobs and the most money spent in the local economy. However, to please you, Southampton not included here.

When you measure cities you need to look at commuting flow and continuous suburbanised land. If the two match and merge, then like a CSA or like Tokyo, you compare and contrast like with like. Too many people measure Tokyo and New York, then when it comes to London they chop half of it off. That is for historic reasons and the British have a massive issue with super-size cities. They just can't recognise it in their heads. Other countries like Japan and the US don't have said issues. They are not so obsessed with historic and small area borders when they long ago got eaten by the city economically, physically and transport-wise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2021, 05:34 PM
 
Location: In the heights
36,918 posts, read 38,864,790 times
Reputation: 20949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennine Metroplex UK View Post
Recognised in London corridors of power but just not formally recognised by public bodies that have not updated the growth of London since the 1940's. London Plan 2011:

"2.12 London is at the centre of a city region covering a large part of south-east England, home to 21 million people and some
11.5 million jobs. This is a rapidly growing and developing area; over the next two decades, a narrower area comprising London and the surrounding 30 kilometres alone is likely to see a 13 per cent growth in population, a
15 per cent growth in households and 13 per cent growth in jobs.2
2.13 London exerts a substantial effect over south-east England. It is inextricably linked with this wider region, whether looked at in terms of patterns of employment, skills and education, housing markets, town centres and planning for retail, airport policy, patterns of commuting, responding to environmental challenges like climate change, management of resources like water and energy, Green Belt, waterways and open spaces or the handling of waste."

Southampton not included. But I would include it, yes. No different to Tokyo doing the same or New York doing the same (correctly as these are continuous suburbs relying on the central area for everything and the highest value jobs and the most money spent in the local economy. However, to please you, Southampton not included here.

When you measure cities you need to look at commuting flow and continuous suburbanised land. If the two match and merge, then like a CSA or like Tokyo, you compare and contrast like with like. Too many people measure Tokyo and New York, then when it comes to London they chop half of it off. That is for historic reasons and the British have a massive issue with super-size cities. They just can't recognise it in their heads. Other countries like Japan and the US don't have said issues. They are not so obsessed with historic and small area borders when they long ago got eaten by the city economically, physically and transport-wise.

I'm curious as to what is included in this London CSA. What are the boundaries you're setting? Are you adding up all of London, South East England, and East of England regions together to get this?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2021, 03:36 AM
 
Location: Great Britain
26,918 posts, read 13,138,568 times
Reputation: 19158
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
I'm curious as to what is included in this London CSA. What are the boundaries you're setting? Are you adding up all of London, South East England, and East of England regions together to get this?
What are the boundaries for the NYC CSA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2021, 03:39 AM
 
10 posts, read 6,698 times
Reputation: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
I'm curious as to what is included in this London CSA. What are the boundaries you're setting? Are you adding up all of London, South East England, and East of England regions together to get this?
I didn't do the above piece, I was merely one of the researchers at that time and urban analysis heads. The Government has suburban land use maps. What is included is much of Southeast England where that suburban sprawl is continuous (either via fingers or as general spread through low density sprawl) and the CSA is analysed in the same way as NYC. It must be continuous (and fingers and low density sprawl can take several circuitous routes to end up in the same place between a point A and post B for example). That area must be dependent on the CBD. If the area is continuous suburban sprawl but does [not] have dependency on the CBD and wider catchment then it will not be counted, whether or not it is physically connected to the CBD via fingers, arms or general suburban sprawl at low density.

The commuting patterns must match the suburban sprawl on the ground. For example, at the time these numbers were compiled and urban geography (from satellite imagery) analysed, Southampton was not part of the numbers. If it were, with Bournemouth, Portsmouth - Solent more widely (some of which is dependent on London and physically joined to the rest of London's urban mass) then the number would have been 1.4 million higher at the time. However, there is evidence that the reliance on London has increased and commuting patterns have extended into Southampton itself over the last decade (formerly this was not the case and not counted). So too high value added jobs in Bournemouth see these people commute to central London and the urbanised land is continuous via two fingers to the rest of the urbanised landmass. However, one has to set a threshold. This took a lot longer than people think.

Urban geography is intensely complex today. We recognised that. We used the CSA method in the US and the same method is employed in Tokyo to get 38 million (or 43 million as we calculated looking at Kanto and physical and economically adjoined areas that weren't counted in the 1980's or 90's for instance but have since been connected to the rest of its mass). We understood London is far larger than any official data shows or peoples' Wiki entries (which are horrendously inaccurate but the way. I despair at students' and contributors academic rigour today). We knew the public would not accept they had been swallowed by London so we published the piece in this way. The language used was intentional. Don't be surprised if London in the usual suspect sources is measured with the Greater London boundaries or Eurostat definitions and then compared to Tokyo and New York using totally different definitions (i.e including [all] the urbanised landmass rather than just 7000ppl densities for example). They're all incorrect and nothing will change any time soon. Paris is also a victim of this. Ille de France is not all of Paris. Milan has the same issue. In fact, when you work in this field you find all European cities are measured totally differently and all figures are simply wrong. Analyses on the Continent (which appears to infect Wiki users) uses a density per square kilometre approach instead of an urbanised land approach. This gives you wildly different answers.

To use the same methodology used in the rest of the world, said suburban land must be 'of one'. That is to say that if countryside surrounds a place on all four sides and obviously so by some margin, then it won't be counted, even if people commute from it and that place is economically connected. I have to say, studying this over 25 years, it is unbelievable how fast Southeast England has suburbanised. For instance, west of Ashford was all rural just 20 years ago with a few villages. Even I dropped my tea when I revisited this analysis after 8 years with updated imagery. We are now seeing emerging low density sprawl right across to Tunbridge Wells (which is already connected to the rest of London's suburban sprawl) up to Paddock Wood and into Maidstone which has been part of London's suburban sprawl for many years. Then look at the area around Maidstone to the south and east and the speed of expansion is breathtaking. Further work was carried out in my company for investment clients, but also with the public and the results were interesting (psychologically speaking)...

We asked people whether they felt the built environment had changed. They said by majority (within other questions about lifestyles, their jobs etc) that their towns used to be rural but now London has encroached on them and words to that effect. Several older people said they moved to get out of London but now it has swallowed them and the areas they moved from have now caught up with them again, with new housing, roads, school runs, commuters. So it was the case that people also *felt* like they are part of a larger city where the areas we mapped relating to London were.

Another area to watch is Oxford through the Thames Valley, Northampton joining Bedford and Milton Keynes into the rest - commuter patterns there are already fixed for many years and only increased. The irony is, Milton Keynes was created to house people out of London and this is the classic case of London catching up with it and the tentacles devouring it. Our research shows that since 2000, Greenbelt has been an irrelevance. Indeed, what has happened is building individual dwellings in the greenbelt appears to obviously have been built, but so much development since the 1970's happened beyond the Greenbelt and has then joined the rest via this Greenbelt development. So what you get when you look from above is an urban 'blob' (London as people [believe it is]) and then as you zoom into the 'green' areas no the map, you find more and more houses you never knew were there. The more you zoom the more you find, then you even finds large clumps of homes that from above didn't exist to the eye.

In my experience as someone whom analyses this for a living (or now as a tiny part of our wider business), of all the cities analysed, London has by far the most complex urban geography. This is due to history, our unique (but failed) policies like Greenbelt and the urban patterns that has created in Southeast England.

I am due to do a detailed analysis (I won't do another) in 2023 when all this has calmed down in the wider world and I can obtain accurate population data. Getting data right now (even in finance) is hard work. I would finish by saying, you would not have got these numbers 25 years ago. Places that are now part of suburban landmass used to be satellites. Only in the last 15-20 years in particular have many of these places been swallowed by general low density private builds or developer plots, or been connected by urban 'fingers' of development joining them to the rest where commuter patterns were already increasing.

Last edited by Pennine Metroplex UK; 05-29-2021 at 03:51 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2021, 12:42 PM
 
Location: In the heights
36,918 posts, read 38,864,790 times
Reputation: 20949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World View Post
What are the boundaries for the NYC CSA.

New York–Newark–Jersey City, NY–NJ–PA Metropolitan Statistical Area (19,043,386)
And then add on these:


These use a formula for percent of commuters from county to core county to determine inclusion. Realistically though, I think Litchfield, Ulster, and Monroe to be stretches especially given the rather sparse urbanization and the lack of frequent commuter rail.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2021, 04:34 AM
 
Location: Great Britain
26,918 posts, read 13,138,568 times
Reputation: 19158
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
New York–Newark–Jersey City, NY–NJ–PA Metropolitan Statistical Area (19,043,386)
And then add on these:


These use a formula for percent of commuters from county to core county to determine inclusion. Realistically though, I think Litchfield, Ulster, and Monroe to be stretches especially given the rather sparse urbanization and the lack of frequent commuter rail.
I think the most important measure is land mass, as in square miles or km2, and also public transport connection.

London is designed differently, it has green belts and suburbs, and is more attractive for it, however the rail network is extensive and covers most towns and villages, and allows for commuting.

In terms of the US some of the large metro areas are just laughable, and I don't always them seriously.

New York statistical areas - Wikipedia

The resident population of Greater London and those counties including the Metropolitan Green Belt was 18,868,800 in 2011, however the population of London and it's surrounds have grown over the last ten years.

London metropolitan area - Wikipedia

Last edited by Brave New World; 05-30-2021 at 04:46 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2021, 06:55 AM
 
Location: Great Britain
26,918 posts, read 13,138,568 times
Reputation: 19158
Here'some figures on NYC commuting.

NYC's working population tend to live in NYC, and the Metro area, other than areas very close to NYC is not really a commuter zone.

It also should be noted that London has an extensive rail network, which has improved further due to Thameslink, and will be even further improved still through Crossrail, making it far easier to commute in to London. As for London's workforce it's 5.2 million.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYC Gov

More than half of NYC residents work within their home boroughs, but the rest work elsewhere in the city or region.

More than half of the 4.2 million working New Yorkers work within their home boroughs.

80% of the 4.7 million employees working in New York City live within the five boroughs.

The other 20% are housed outside the city and commute into NYC.

The Ins and Outs of NYC Commuting - NYC Gov Planning


Last edited by Brave New World; 05-30-2021 at 07:14 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2021, 08:29 AM
 
Location: Bergen County, New Jersey
11,980 posts, read 7,742,806 times
Reputation: 9943
Quote:
Originally Posted by barneyg View Post
Show your work. Or is Southampton a suburb of London now??
Its only 75 miles away

Torrington CT, which is 111 miles away is in New York CSA. Montauk is 123 miles away... ocean county nj is up to 105 miles away. So apples to apples, right?
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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top