Friday, April 20, 2007

Paris metro area, 16.7 million people ??

Of course the answer to the question of this thread is no. Paris metro area is indeed of 11.5 million people and certainly not of 16 million people. However, it would be if it was calculated in the same way used by those considering London metro area representing 18 million people.

The purpose of this thread is actually simply to prove by the absurd, in using another city example, that the theory about the South East of England being London metro area is a non sense. So I'll start in giving my arguments on why Paris metro area is at 16 million people... and those are exactly the same which are advocated for a London metro area of 18 million people. Afterwards, I'll explain why this reasoning is wrong.


So, let's start the game. Paris metro area is indeed at 16 million people for the simple reason that this figure is the result of grouping several satellite cities of Paris which are linked to the main core by a large proportion of commuters (40%). Indeed, those satellite cities are all sharing commuters with Paris, and the best way to prove it is to look at an official map published by the INSEE, the body issuing official statistics in France :



As you can see in that map, in dark orange are pictured the urban cores, in light orange are pictured the periurban belt centered on one urban core, and in yellow are pictured the periurban belt shared by at least two urban cores. If we group them altogether, we obtain what is in the red circle : a region sharing commuters at a very high level (more than 40% commuters). As this region is linked by the 40% commuter criteria, it represents Paris metropolitan area : An area of 16.7 million people.


Now the arguments have been given, but there's a flaw among them making the whole reasoning irrelevant. What is that flaw ? That flaw is simply that the purpose of metropolitan areas is not to group together various cities of hundreds of thousands people, the purpose of metropolitan areas is to determine a periurban belt around an urban core.

A periurban belt is made of sparsely peopled areas which are not part of the urban area, but which have enough commuters to be directly associate with it. To give you an example, that's exactly the reason why San Francisco and San José are not part of the same metropolitan area. Indeed there are certainly more than 40% commuters between both places, but San José is an enough big and densely populated area to be considered as being on its own an urban core.

In my Paris example, all the areas in dark oranges are enough large urban cores to have their own metropolitan areas, and the fact they are 40% of commuters between those cores or not is completely irrelevant to the question whether or not they belong to the same metro area.

As such, the map above do not picture Paris metro area, but it actually also pictures the metro areas of Creil, Senlis, Provins, Nemours, Chartres, Dreux, Vernon, Evreux, Rouen and all the other satellite cities (and not satellite periurban areas) around Paris.

As a result, Paris metropolitan area is indeed of 11.5 million people, just like London metropolitan area is between 12 and 13 million people.>

Los angeles or New York

Hey people i'm italian originary from soyth america and i need to move in one of those cities...so the question is..wich is better for live?

better climate-weather?
better people?
better city events(stuff like oscar,vma,grammys...movies premieres..)
better shops?
better city for work?
better "helps"for immigrants by the State?
wich city has more racial discrimination?( this is important for me)


but the question of "all" is
wich city is better for live?>

Will the REAL Toronto please stand up?

We have all seen those great photos of Toronto great skyline but that is NOT what makes Toronto great.
So much nice old archetecture, gorgeous home, wonderlife livly streets, fantastic nightlife, markets,............never see then.
I admit I don't know how to put them up as I'm far too much of a computer moron but someone must have some great shots.
Rosedale, CastleFrank, Cabbagetown, QueenWest, Parkdale, Yorkville, EglintonUptown, LittleItaly, LittlePortugal, LitleIndia, St.Lawrence, Distillery, Beaches, TheDanforth, HighPark, BloorWestVillage, TheJunction, Annex, Kensington, Davisville, TheatreDistrict, EntertainmentDistrict, Yonge/Midtown,
Chinatown, GayVillage, Ronnsasville, University, Yonge/DundasSquare and so many more.
It is these areas that make Toronto such a truly fantastic, liveable, enviable metropolis not its skyline.
Any photos would be great to show people why Toronto is such a great and truly wonderous metropolis.>

In which of these Latin American countries is life the cheapest?

In which of these Latin American countries is life the cheapest?

Brazil
Mexico
Venezuela
Chile
Argentina>

What's the coolest street in your city?

One street, any criteria you want.

I tend to like lively streets, but boston doesn't really have many good ones, so I'm gonna stay the streets of beacon hill:



but my old haunt in DC, Adams Morgan, had one of my favorites: 18th st.





>

Isn't Big 3 a redundant term?

It is common for scraoper enthusiasts to talk of a Big 3 of CHI, NYC and Hong Kong.

CHI has 10 buildings over 250 metres with 2 in construction. Total 12.
NYC 7 and 3 respectively. Total 10.
HK 9 and 5 respectively. Total 14.
Shanghai 9 and 6 respectively. Total 15.

I realise that there are arguments about aesthetics and other issues but purely on number of supertalls - by which I mean 250 mtrs plus - isn't it no longer accurate to speak of a big 3 when in 2 to 3 years Shanghai will have hafd as many again supertalls than NYC? Isn't it true that now we have a Big 4?

Interesting aside: Each Chinese city has as many supertalls in construction as the U.S. Big 2 combined. The Chinese boom goes on relentlessly.>

Why are suburbs popular in America, Australia, NZ etc?

Why do you think suburbs are so popular in America, and to a slightly lesser extent, in Australia, NZ and Canada?

If you live in a suburb, why did you make that choice, instead of moving to the city?

A big reason in America is the terrible state of schools in the cities. Once you have children, unless you have enough money to send them to private schools, you're not very likely to stay in the city.

Also, frankly, life in a suburb isn't necessarily as bad as it's made out to be on this forum. I have a strong feeling that most people in this world (and remember that W Europe and N America each make up well under 10% of the world's population) would prefer to live in a big brand-new house with a lot of land, a big garden in the back, perhaps a private swimming pool, and two new cars parked outside, than in a small two or three room flat in central London, NY, Paris or San Francisco.

Suburbs don't have as many dining, cultural or entertainment options as cities, but there are perhaps more than enough restaurants, bars, shopping malls, and even museums for an average 35-year-old individual with a full time job and young children at home. And suburbs have far more nature-related activities than the cities, since almost everyone in the suburbs has a car and can easily drive to good fishing, hiking, boating, beaches, etc. And since the overall population density is less, parks/beaches in the suburbs tend to be much larger and less crowded than ones in the city.

Finally, living in the suburbs, it's really not very difficult to drive into the city when you want to experience a wider range of museums, restuarants and nightlife. I live in Manhattan, and go to museums perhaps once every two or three months. And I have seen 7 broadway plays since moving here three year ago. It wouldn't be too hard to drive in to NY from NJ just as often.>