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.
A city is a build-up area. So if the Metro Area is a more logical representation of that, than I will use that. New York metro area is the largest in the world regarding square miles, so NY will automatically win in that regard.
Regarding the city core or the city proper, dependent on what you want to highlight, that might be more personal interpretation. London doesn't have all that water so that is denser, but Manhattan feels even denser, so that might compensate and balance it out.
Yeah but what you are failing to realize is that in NYC, and all American cities, density falls off a cliff. There are single family homes on large plots just outside Midtown Manhattan. Middle density is sorely missing. London is continuously more urban for a much larger stretch of an area in all directions over NYC. However, NYC has much higher peak residential/non-residential density given the heights of the buildings.
New York Built-Up Area has a population of 21,396,000 and covers 11,344 sq km
London Built-Up Area has a population of 10,803,000 and covers 1,738 sq km
That is an insane difference. Btw, Greater Tokyo is somewhere in between that, leaning more towards NY than London and is of course more dense in the edges than NY.
Quote:
Originally Posted by masssachoicetts
Yeah but what you are failing to realize is that in NYC, and all American cities, density falls off a cliff. There are single family homes on large plots just outside Midtown Manhattan. Middle density is sorely missing. London is continuously more urban for a much larger stretch of an area in all directions over NYC. However, NYC has much higher peak residential/non-residential density given the heights of the buildings.
I do realise that, and that is a fair point. Still, when I see pics of Queens and Brooklyn, that also looks quite dense. I just don't know if outside that it is directly as you say, because Google Maps shows for example a continuous build-up up area untill like halfway Long island. Also, it is kinda weird that Americans use forests and fields and such as metro area (that's what i read here about NY metro outskirts, don't know if that is true)
That is an insane difference. Btw, Greater Tokyo is somewhere in between that, leaning more towards NY than London and is of course more dense in the edges than NY.
London's 2023 population is estimated at 9,648,110, that's the actual city and not the metro area, as for the metro area it extends way beyond the built up area and there are various definitions, however many of the connecting so called Home Counties and many parts of the two regions surrounding in relation to the South East and East are within easy commuting distance of London.
London has around 3 million daily commuters and around 20 million overseas visitors per year, and is just over 2 hours by rail from Paris, another significant global city with a significant population and metro area.
The main difference in terms of Europe including the UK and some other parts of the world, is the use of Metropolitan Green Belts in order that cities and their suburbs remain attractive and green, and in order to improve the quality of life and environment as opposed to having a continual unbroken built up areas.
This use of green belts is considered good urban planning practice in the UK and many other parts of Europe, whilst most surrounding counties and regions have good rail links with London, and there are also good national and even international rail links.
Yeah but what you are failing to realize is that in NYC, and all American cities, density falls off a cliff. There are single family homes on large plots just outside Midtown Manhattan. Middle density is sorely missing. London is continuously more urban for a much larger stretch of an area in all directions over NYC. However, NYC has much higher peak residential/non-residential density given the heights of the buildings.
I think the caveat is that NYC falls off a cliff partly because it starts at immense heights. While what you say about US cities is true, NYC's rather large scale means that at just about any density threshold NYC is going to have more people than London. This is assuming we're talking about the metropolitan area though since Greater London (the municipality people are referring to when they say London) has legal boundaries larger than that of the city of New York especially as the New Jersey part of the metropolitan area carries a lot of that middle density,
I think the caveat is that NYC falls off a cliff partly because it starts at immense heights. While what you say about US cities is true, NYC's rather large scale means that at just about any density threshold NYC is going to have more people than London. This is assuming we're talking about the metropolitan area though since Greater London (the municipality people are referring to when they say London) has legal boundaries larger than that of the city of New York especially as the New Jersey part of the metropolitan area carries a lot of that middle density,
Greater London is what most people refer to as London and consists of the historic financial district known as the City of London and the 32 London Boroughs, in terms of London's metro area that is far more debatable, as due to new rail links such as the Elizabeth Line (Crossrail) and Thameslink, and other factors relating to the price of housing in parts of London and it's surrounding area.
Given the scope of London's Metro Area and the 2011 figure of 18,868,800 in relation to the population of Greater London and those counties (partly) within the Metropolitan Green Belt, I would suggest that the figure is around the 20 million level, if not greater due to the impact of the new improved rail links I have previously mentioned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Scope - London Metropolitan Area
The boundaries are not fixed; they expand as transport options improve and affordable housing moves further away from the city centre.[4] The belt currently covers much of the South East region and part of the East of England region, including the home counties of Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Berkshire, Surrey, Kent and Essex, and, by several definitions, Hampshire, West Sussex, East Sussex, Bedfordshire & Northamptonshire.
The resident population of Greater London and those counties (partly) within the Metropolitan Green Belt was 18,868,800 in 2011. Much of the undeveloped part of this area lies within the designated belt, which, save as to existing buildings, yards and gardens, covers nearly all of Surrey, eastern Berkshire, southern Buckinghamshire, southern and mid Hertfordshire, southern Bedfordshire, south-west Essex, and western Kent. Largely in these counties, three Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (the Chiltern Hills, Surrey Hills and North Downs AONBs) surrounding the Thames basin are within the commuter belt.
As for the latest news in relation to London's financial district and demand for office space, it seems to be quite positive after the downturn caused by the pandemic.
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.
