EU Urbanization (map!)

[SHiRO]

I've been working on this map for several days.
It's not entirely selfmade, I found it somewhere on the internet but I had to take all irrelevant things off and change colors, which took
a lot of time.
Enjoy...:)



http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/4287/urbaneuropevw7.png

[Cirrus]

Neato.

Also: Wow Belgium! I had no idea.

Also also: Why aren't Andorra, San Marino and Lichtenstein in the EU?

[MSPtoMKE]

Now that, right there, is a cool map!

[UrbanSophist]

Wow, London is big compared to all the other cities.

[aufbau]

Neat map! I can see The Netherlands' Ranstad region. This map makes Portugal, Ireland and the Nordic region look so empty.

[James Bond Agent 007]

Somebody ate Switzerland.

[BTinSF]

Somebody ate Switzerland.

Not a member of the EU. I was wondering what he had against Norway until I realized why it was a big blank too--and poor little Andorra.

[James Bond Agent 007]

^
I know that. But it still looks funny with a hole where Switzerland is, ;) :D

[BTinSF]

^
I know that. But it still looks funny with a hole where Switzerland is, ;) :D

I think the Andorran hole is tragic. :(

[Julito-Dubai]

They are not in the EU, because they don't have economomic benefit of it, as they are that small. Liechtenstein is a tax heaven and would not profit from free trade (especially as they are economically tied to Switzerland and share a common market with it).

[Grumpy]

Interesting map , didn't know some areas were that urbanized in the EU

[R@ptor]

I always thought Spain's mediterranean coast would be denser populated.

[arbeiter]

The area near the Czech border near Krakow, Poland looks to be a much larger metro area than I thought!

[SHiRO]

Also: Wow Belgium! I had no idea.
Yeah they have very lax building codes down there, which results in sprawling countryside towns. I for one think it's a mess...:D
But don't be fooled, if you take out the scarsely populated south of Belgium and you do the same with the scarsely populated north of the Netherlands so that you'll end up with roughly the same area, the Netherlands has 14 million on the same area Belgium has 10 million.

Here's a map of the border region, you will see the difference. The Netherlands north of the border with North Brabant province, roughly 2,3 million people in the area displayed. South of the border a part of Antwerp province in Belgium with roughly 1,3 million people in the area displayed.

http://img489.imageshack.us/img489/6517/borderaltcc8.png



Also also: Why aren't Andorra, San Marino and Lichtenstein in the EU?
One word. Tax havens!
Also note that the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and Bornholm are not in the EU.


I always thought Spain's mediterranean coast would be denser populated.
It is densely populated, but mainly directely at the coast with the hinterland quite empty. This shows up on the map as red spots along the coast, but not sprawling inwards.:)




The area near the Czech border near Krakow, Poland looks to be a much larger metro area than I thought!
That's the Katowice/Upper Silesia metro area with 3,5 million inhabitants. It's like a mini Ruhr Gebiet.
Krakow is the first big blot to the right of it, the one which looks like ET's head...:D

[FREKI]

Awesome map! :worship:

Here's a high res pic of Denmark in case you want to add the small missing parts :)

( Unfortunatly most suburbs and villages blend into nature on it.. but it still gives an idea about the desity )

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/1724/denmarkurbanix5.jpg

[staff]

Copenhagen's urban area looks correct in size while Malmö's looks to small. Are they made from different original maps? Malmö is very small by area but not as small as in this map.
How do I correct it? :)

Doesn't Paris look a tad bit oversized as well?

This map also shows how huge Milan's metropolitan area actually is. The city itself is not that big, but it has some 8 million people in it's nearby metro area!

This thread made my day, by the way! You know I got love for these kinds of maps, SHiRO. Thanks! :D

[staff]

Also note that the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and Bornholm are not in the EU.
Bornholm not in the EU?
That's news to me!


On another note: The map shows that Copenhagen's urban area is quite sprawly (pretty big and still only holds some 1,6 million people), whereas the city proper/inner city is very dense (perhaps one of the more dense in EU as a whole).

[Jeff_in_Dayton]

This map is quite detailed in the areas its picking up!

One can see the Friedberg/Bad Nauheim twin towns just north of Frankfurt, and the string of urbanization along the "Bergstrasse" agricutural region, connecting the Rhine-Main area with Ludwigshaven/Mannheim/Heidelberg. The sparsly populated lowland "Hessiche Reid" along the Rhine (parallelling the Bergstrasse) shows up as a blank, too.

[Jeff_in_Dayton]

The area near the Czech border near Krakow, Poland looks to be a much larger metro area than I thought!


Yeah thats that old Silesian industrial district, sort of a "Ruhr East"...mining and steel mills and chemical works.

I new it was a sort of urban region, but am suprised, too, at the scale there.

[EtherealMist]

theres no scale! what does the red mean? 20,000 p sq mile?

[X236K]

Yeah thats that old Silesian industrial district, sort of a "Ruhr East"...mining and steel mills and chemical works.

I new it was a sort of urban region, but am suprised, too, at the scale there.

The density in this region is very high, North Moravia in Czech + South Silesia in Poland have together more than 4.5 milion inhabitants and a strong industrial base but the structure is oldfashioned and just slowly recovering. On the Czech side (region of 1.3 milion people) the unemployment rate at some 15 % and GDP at 55 % of EU average (compare with Pragues 3% unemployment/130% GDP), on Poland side even worse.

[FREKI]

Also note that..... Bornholm are not in the EU.Erhmm.... it certainly are... why the heck wouldn't it be? lol

Greenland was allowed to leave by the Danish goverment, but that island is far far away and have a certain degree of self-governing, bornholm is just yet another Danish island, nothing special about that...

[Agent Orange]

Love the map SH!RO.

Madrid and Barcelona must be denser than I'd thought.

[staff]

It would be interesting to see NYC, LA, Chicago, Atlanta or any other huge North American ("sub-")urban area pasted into this map (to scale, of course).

[MolsonExport]

Wonderful map. Tells a great story.

[crisp444]

Love the map SH!RO.

Madrid and Barcelona must be denser than I'd thought.

Madrid and Barcelona are incredibly dense cities but are now being surrounded by American style sprawl (single family homes in auto oriented suburbs, some with streets that have no sidewalks). Their red areas are growing.

[brian_b]

It would be interesting to see NYC, LA, Chicago, Atlanta or any other huge North American ("sub-")urban area pasted into this map (to scale, of course).

Certainly! However, I don't see an explanation of what the red is actually showing, so it would be difficult to replicate.

[brian_b]

Did some searching to try to find something for the USA but came across this stunning Europe image from NASA:

http://veimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/1513/lights_europe_lrg.gif

[WonderlandPark]

^^ amazing, I could stare at that a long time.

[SHiRO]

Bornholm not in the EU?
That's news to me!




Erhmm.... it certainly are... why the heck wouldn't it be? lol

Greenland was allowed to leave by the Danish goverment, but that island is far far away and have a certain degree of self-governing, bornholm is just yet another Danish island, nothing special about that...
Well, Bornholm was left blank on this map, so i assumed it was out of the EU like Aland or Isle of Man, but it probably is a mistake on the original map.
I did some research and couldn't find anything about Bornholm being outside the EU.
It isn't however a normal municipality either (it has county privileges) though I understood it will become a municipality when the Danish 2007 administrative reforms take place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bornholm

[SHiRO]

theres no scale! what does the red mean? 20,000 p sq mile?

Certainly! However, I don't see an explanation of what the red is actually showing, so it would be difficult to replicate.
Haha.
I always find it striking that Americans (in general) think in density and ask what the red stands for with these kinds of maps, while for Europeans (and some Americans as well) it is perfectely obvious that the red is the build up area.
:)

[JManc]

what is striking about that first map is the radial pattern centering in northwestern belgium and then spreading into northern france and a bit into germany.

is there a river or some other physical structure explaining that?

[Swede]

It isn't however a normal municipality either (it has county privileges) though I understood it will become a municipality when the Danish 2007 administrative reforms take place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bornholm

Bornholm is just another part of Denmark, like all the other islands afaik. But the municipality/county merger isn't that strange, I wouldn't be surprised if it happend to Gotland (the bigger of the Swedish islands) in a few years (since it's all one municipality and is its own county).


@brian_b - that's a pic of the night lights of Europe, so it's not the same thing really. Just look at how well-lit southern Sweden is :)

[SHiRO]

what is striking about that first map is the radial pattern centering in northwestern belgium and then spreading into northern france and a bit into germany.

is there a river or some other physical structure explaining that?
I think it's towns centered on the (now defunct) coal mine industry.

[village person]

Haha.
I always find it striking that Americans (in general) think in density and ask what the red stands for with these kinds of maps, while for Europeans (and some Americans as well) it is perfectely obvious that the red is the build up area.
:)

Then what is and isn't considered "built up?" Clearly, the grey areas have buildings and infrastructure. If red makes no distinction between the city of Paris and new, auto-oriented suburbs of Barcelona, and grey makes no distinction between farmland and forest, then I wonder what is so important about whatever the cut-off is between these 2 colors.

[SHiRO]

Then what is and isn't considered "built up?" Clearly, the grey areas have buildings and infrastructure. If red makes no distinction between the city of Paris and new, auto-oriented suburbs of Barcelona, and grey makes no distinction between farmland and forest, then I wonder what is so important about whatever the cut-off is between these 2 colors.
There are no "auto oriented" suburbs of Barcelona.
In Europe it is really simple, you have the city and you have the country side. :)
Even the suburbs are clustered and dense, anything else just doesn't show up on the map. See what I mean that Europeans "get" this (the distinction between build up and not build up) and people who are unfamilier with the development of the land here don't. I guess you have to see it for your self to understand.

Suburbs of Barcelona:
(btw, my family lives in "the suburbs of Barcelona" ;))

http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/1959/barcelona068reby8.jpg

Map of Barcelona in greater detail (selfmade):

http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/2131/barcelonarg8.png
red=buildings, not red = not buildings. Simple. :)

[village person]

There are no "auto oriented" suburbs of Barcelona.


Well, it's a very pretty picture to paint, isn't it? But we both know better than this. :)

[Diddle E Squat]

http://veimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/1513/lights_europe_lrg.gif

Why all the blue lights in the North Sea? Surely the oil drilling platforms aren't so dense as to give off light comparable to midsize cities.

[SHiRO]

Well, it's a very pretty picture to paint, isn't it? But we both know better than this. :)
Then show me one picture of a Barcelona suburb that even slightly resembles an American style auto oriented suburb.
That picture above of the Barcelona suburbs, is taken from my family's house on top of a mountain and even there there are sidewalks. If you walk ten minutes down the mountain, there's a train station which takes you to Barcelona in 15 minutes.
The suburb itself is probably more dense then almost any place in the US.

There may be some wealthy areas with freestanding houses in and around Barcelona, but even those aren't close to US type sprawl.

[JManc]

http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/2131/barcelonarg8.png
red=buildings, not red = not buildings. Simple. :)

i don't get it. can you break down for me even further?

can there be tents, porto-potties and tree-houses in the white areas?

:banana:

[village person]

Then show me one picture of a Barcelona suburb that even slightly resembles an American style auto oriented suburb.
That picture above of the Barcelona suburbs, is taken from my family's house on top of a mountain and even there there are sidewalks. If you walk ten minutes down the mountain, there's a train station which takes you to Barcelona in 15 minutes.
The suburb itself is probably more dense then almost any place in the US.

There may be some wealthy areas with freestanding houses in and around Barcelona, but even those aren't close to US type sprawl.

You see, I never even mentioned the U.S.

[SHiRO]

Well, I don't call a place "auto orientated" if you can walk to a train station in 10 minutes. Even from the top of a mountain!
Of course most people drive, at least the ones who have houses on the mountain, but still, show me a pic of a Barcelona suburb which you think is auto oriented then. By that logic, any place without some form of public transport right at the front door is "auto orientated".

Not saying everything is perfect and that those houses on the mountain top are not sprawl, but they are not nearly as bad as having real auto orientated suburbs 30 miles from downtown.

And back to the original point, it is still very clear where the build up area ends and the countryside begins.

[Cory]

Spain and Italy have great cities but goodness aren't they spread apart.

[village person]

It's just not clear, to me at least, what you mean by built up. I can think of places in Europe that are neither city nor countryside. I only wish to know how those fit into this overly simple polarization.

Barcelona was only an example, as was Paris. I could have picked any number of cities instead. I could even have reversed them. Read "... distinction between the highly dense core of a city and new, auto-oriented suburbs..." I guess that's how I should have worded it. However, Barcelona is no less a decent example for what I was trying to describe.

[SHiRO]

I think that generally speaking there are pretty hard lines between city/build up places and countryside in Europe.
I don't think there are many places that are neither. Yes the countryside is pretty dense, but the population is mostly clustered in population centers, not spread out over miles in suburbs with ever decreasing densities and where no line can be drawn between city and countryside.
Anyway, all this is just proving my point about having to know the land to understand ;).
I'm betting that each and every European knows exactely where the city ends and the countryside starts and thus what the difference is between the red and the white on the map. Americans tend to think more in densities because there are no hard lines between the two in the US mostly.

[SHiRO]

Another example:

http://www.zeeburgnieuws.nl/sateliet/sat-amsterdam.jpg

It's pretty obvious what would become red on the map and what not...

[fumfel83]

The area near the Czech border near Krakow, Poland looks to be a much larger metro area than I thought! Yeah thats that old Silesian industrial district, sort of a "Ruhr East"...mining and steel mills and chemical works.

I new it was a sort of urban region, but am suprised, too, at the scale there

The density in this region is very high, North Moravia in Czech + South Silesia in Poland have together more than 4.5 milion inhabitants and a strong industrial base but the structure is oldfashioned and just slowly recovering. On the Czech side (region of 1.3 milion people) the unemployment rate at some 15 % and GDP at 55 % of EU average (compare with Pragues 3% unemployment/130% GDP), on Poland side even worse.
I've heard that 17 silesian municipalities plan to combine themselves and create one, 2.2 mln, city of 'Silesia'.

[EtherealMist]

There are no "auto oriented" suburbs of Barcelona.
In Europe it is really simple, you have the city and you have the country side. :)
Even the suburbs are clustered and dense, anything else just doesn't show up on the map. See what I mean that Europeans "get" this (the distinction between build up and not build up) and people who are unfamilier with the development of the land here don't. I guess you have to see it for your self to understand.


I thought European cities were growing suburbs just like American cities these days. I remember seeing some stats of how dramatically the suburbs of Paris are growing.

I realize how you could have simply "city" and "country side" but I thought this only existed in the past. The car has made it cheaper to develop more spread out. Are you telling me Europe isn't beginning to sprawl like the US?

[SHiRO]

I thought European cities were growing suburbs just like American cities these days. I remember seeing some stats of how dramatically the suburbs of Paris are growing.

I realize how you could have simply "city" and "country side" but I thought this only existed in the past. The car has made it cheaper to develop more spread out. Are you telling me Europe isn't beginning to sprawl like the US?
I never saw American style sprawl in Europe either in person or on photos.
If someone can show me some, great, but I suspect if it even exists it's very small scale and more dense.
Of course there are suburbs and new developments on the edges of European cities and of course people commute from distant towns to other places, but generally new developments come with new transit and there is no way it is as auto oriented as US sprawl.

If the question is "Is Europe beginning to sprawl just like the USA?" I'm very confident in answering NO!

[brian_b]

I never saw American style sprawl in Europe either in person or on photos.
If someone can show me some, great, but I suspect if it even exists it's very small scale and more dense.
Of course there are suburbs and new developments on the edges of European cities and of course people commute from distant towns to other places, but generally new developments come with new transit and there is no way it is as auto oriented as US sprawl.

If the question is "Is Europe beginning to sprawl just like the USA?" I'm very confident in answering NO!

Look at the outskirts of Dublin. That's pretty close to the current type of sprawl in the US, except that the houses are a bit smaller.

The worst that I've actually seen in person has to be Calgary Canada. I'm not saying it is the worst in the world, just the worst I've seen in person.

[brian_b]

And by the way, I think I've found the data needed to create a North American equivalent map. It's raw data though, so I'm going to need a few days to get time to write a little program that will translate it into an image.

[Cirrus]

In Europe it is really simple, you have the city and you have the country side. Even the suburbs are clustered and dense, anything else just doesn't show up on the map.
Then show me one picture of a Barcelona suburb that even slightly resembles an American style auto oriented suburb.

It's not like we can't check these things. Using Google Earth I found this on the outskirts of Barcelona:

http://beyonddc.com/nonweb/barcelona_outskirts.jpg

Would that be urbanized or not urbanized on your map? The little "downtown" gridded area is easy, but what about those houses on the hills? What about what I circled in red?

It's true that there is nowhere near as much of this around Barcelona as can be found on the outskirts of just about every American city, but let's not pretend it doesn't exist at all. That does nothing for your credibility; because we all know it does.

... I "get it". European urbanization is much easier to map visually than American urbanization, which in many parts of the country slowly trails off into ever lower and lower densities and has no clear boundaries. This is why Americans are used to using some statistical density measure, because there's not always a clear end, and deciding where to draw the line based on visual evidence alone would often be arbitrary and not very accurate. Europe does not suffer from that problem to as great an extent as North America; I understand and agree. But if you start pretending all of Europe is as clean and easy to discern as Amsterdam, well, the visual evidence would seem to indicate that you’re wildly incorrect.

[Cirrus]

We've done it before, Brian. Here is the US map, based on density of census tracts. Click here (http://beyonddc.com/nonweb/_maps/_UrbanizedAmerica/usa-large.png) for a much larger version.

http://beyonddc.com/nonweb/_maps/_UrbanizedAmerica/usa.png

[_J_]

In Europe it is really simple, you have the city and you have the country side. :)

UUuuuuuummm...SHiRO, what rock do you live under? The suburbanization of Europe has been observed, catalogued and critiqued extensively over the last fifty years. In general, European central cities are losing population and the metro areas are growin in area (though neither trend is as marked as in American cities between 1930 and 1980).

As Dr. Ronald D. Utt discusses in City Limits: Putting the Brakes on Sprawl: A Contrary View "The central city of Copenhagen has bled population at a rate competitive with that of many American central cities. From 1950 to 1990 Copenhagen's population dropped from 760,000 to 465,000, nearly 40 percent.

"Since 1960, the Copenhagen urbanized area (including suburbs) has dropped in population 14 percent, while its land area has expanded 24 percent."

This is the case in many cities. The suburbs are nowhere near the size of American suburbs, and their socioeconomic breakdown is strangely inverted when compared to the USA, but to say there is nothing between urb and exurb in Europe is ludicrus.

[niwell]

From various research projects I have done, it seems that the greatest era of actual suburban expansion in Western Europe was during the 70s/80s. This is when most of the "tract" developments seem to have taken place (if you can call them that). Current bleeding of population has more to do with decreasing household size.

The concept of clearly defined city and countryside seems to vary throughout both the EU and North America as well. There is a much clearer definition in most Canadian and Western US cities then there is in say, Atlanta (or NYC for that matter). Some areas in Europe also seem to have a clearer definition then others. On the whole it's probably clearer then North America, though there are exceptions.

[EtherealMist]

UUuuuuuummm...SHiRO, what rock do you live under? The suburbanization of Europe has been observed, catalogued and critiqued extensively over the last fifty years. In general, European central cities are losing population and the metro areas are growin in area (though neither trend is as marked as in American cities between 1930 and 1980).

As Dr. Ronald D. Utt discusses in City Limits: Putting the Brakes on Sprawl: A Contrary View "The central city of Copenhagen has bled population at a rate competitive with that of many American central cities. From 1950 to 1990 Copenhagen's population dropped from 760,000 to 465,000, nearly 40 percent.

"Since 1960, the Copenhagen urbanized area (including suburbs) has dropped in population 14 percent, while its land area has expanded 24 percent."

This is the case in many cities. The suburbs are nowhere near the size of American suburbs, and their socioeconomic breakdown is strangely inverted when compared to the USA, but to say there is nothing between urb and exurb in Europe is ludicrus.

thats kind of what I was thinking. Shiro seemed too optimistic for me

[seamus]

Another interesting map idea that could help show the 'general' difference between the European map and the American one that was reposted:
Figure out the average population density for the dots in the Europe map, and then show a map of the U.S.A. with only that density and higher! That would really show the amount of Americans that live in a more urban setting (since the American map appears to include exurban sprawl). Would be a lot of work, however.

[SHiRO]

Look at the outskirts of Dublin. That's pretty close to the current type of sprawl in the US, except that the houses are a bit smaller.

Any pics?
Does it look anything like this?
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=121589

Look at this:

Dublin (505,000/113 km² city - 1,200,000/921 km² metro) and Birmingham ,AL (230,000/393.5 km² city - 1,200,000/15,900 km² metro!!!)

http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/8182/dublinov9.png http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/605/birminghamusxh8.png

How does that even compare?:shrug:

[staff]

Copenhagen has lost population from the inner city to the suburbs, but that goes for all European cities - and it doesn't mean that European cities has started sprawling like it's American counterpart.

Copenhagen has quite a big urban area by European standards (compared to the size of it's population that is), but it's not even close when compared to urban areas in North America with the same population, say Vancouver (or even Calgary which is has only half the population of Copenhagen).

Another difference is that there actually live people downtown - almost 250.000 in downtown Copenhagen for example - and still over 500.000 in the densely populated inner city.

[EtherealMist]

Any pics?
Does it look anything like this?
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=121589

Look at this:

Dublin (505,000/113 km² city - 1,200,000/921 km² metro) and Birmingham ,AL (230,000/393.5 km² city - 1,200,000/15,900 km² metro!!!)

http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/8182/dublinov9.png http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/605/birminghamusxh8.png

How does that even compare?:shrug:

that is pretty nuts

[Jonas]

Very interesting stuff, well done :tup:

[SHiRO]

It's not like we can't check these things. Using Google Earth I found this on the outskirts of Barcelona:

http://beyonddc.com/nonweb/barcelona_outskirts.jpg

Would that be urbanized or not urbanized on your map? The little "downtown" gridded area is easy, but what about those houses on the hills? What about what I circled in red?
It would have been nice if it was more zoomed in so we could actually see the types of houses.
This is exactely the type of area my family has a house in. And as I said, there's a train station 10 minutes away. You do realize that there have been houses on top of the hills surrounding Barcelona for centuries, don't you?
This is nothing like American sprawl with its huge new developments 20/30 miles from the city. My family's house is not 5 km from the Barcelona city limit (not even talking about urban area). Yes, surrounding towns grew because of suburbanization, the homes on the mountains remain and also grow in numbers, I even stated that I did consider this sprawl. But my point stands, it's not comparable to American type sprawl and the answer to "are European cities sprawling like American cities"is still firmly NO!

I never saw American style sprawl in Europe either in person or on photos.
If someone can show me some, great, but I suspect if it even exists it's very small scale and more dense.
Of course there are suburbs and new developments on the edges of European cities and of course people commute from distant towns to other places, but generally new developments come with new transit and there is no way it is as auto oriented as US sprawl.

If the question is "Is Europe beginning to sprawl just like the USA?" I'm very confident in answering NO!



It's true that there is nowhere near as much of this around Barcelona as can be found on the outskirts of just about every American city, but let's not pretend it doesn't exist at all. That does nothing for your credibility; because we all know it does.
No we don't all know it does. Show me a pic of something resembeling this:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=121589



... I "get it". European urbanization is much easier to map visually than American urbanization, which in many parts of the country slowly trails off into ever lower and lower densities and has no clear boundaries. This is why Americans are used to using some statistical density measure, because there's not always a clear end, and deciding where to draw the line based on visual evidence alone would often be arbitrary and not very accurate. Europe does not suffer from that problem to as great an extent as North America; I understand and agree.
As I was saying all along. Seems to me you are disagreeing with the people who were denying this, not with me...:shrug:



But if you start pretending all of Europe is as clean and easy to discern as Amsterdam, well, the visual evidence would seem to indicate that you’re wildly incorrect.
I'm not the one pretending. My only claims were that European cities are not sprawling like American cities and that there are no auto oriented suburbs around Barcelona. None of this has been disproven as of yet.
I did not claim that there isn't suburbanization in Europe. I did not claim that there isn't the odd development here or there that is auto oriented and undense. I did not claim that there aren't any problems of any type in European cities. So why the hostility?

[SHiRO]

UUuuuuuummm...SHiRO, what rock do you live under? The suburbanization of Europe has been observed, catalogued and critiqued extensively over the last fifty years.
I live on the continent Europe. I think I can say a thing or two about it with some authority...



In general, European central cities are losing population and the metro areas are growin in area (though neither trend is as marked as in American cities between 1930 and 1980).
Yeah and...? how does this counter my claims?
btw, most European cities are not losing population anymore



As Dr. Ronald D. Utt discusses in City Limits: Putting the Brakes on Sprawl: A Contrary View "The central city of Copenhagen has bled population at a rate competitive with that of many American central cities. From 1950 to 1990 Copenhagen's population dropped from 760,000 to 465,000, nearly 40 percent.

"Since 1960, the Copenhagen urbanized area (including suburbs) has dropped in population 14 percent, while its land area has expanded 24 percent."

Copenhagen (approx. 1,4 million population on map)
vs
Lets say...Albany, NY (approx. 300,000 population on map? correct me if I'm wrong)

http://img480.imageshack.us/img480/3163/cphstafflg9.gif http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/5701/albanyao5.png

Again, not much of a comparison, even after suburbanization in Copenhagen.
btw, the US (Birmingham and Albany) maps *are* based on density and were originally made by Cirrus, I scaled them down to the same scale my maps are...
Oh and this particular map of Copenhagen was made by staff...;)
We're all a big map loving family here...:D



This is the case in many cities. The suburbs are nowhere near the size of American suburbs, and their socioeconomic breakdown is strangely inverted when compared to the USA, but to say there is nothing between urb and exurb in Europe is ludicrus.
I still stand by my claim that there are precious little places in Europe where the line between city/town/suburb and rural is not clear.
Maybe houses on mountain tops do qualify, I already said I do consider it sprawl (because people from out of town and sometimes even out of country are building new ones)...



thats kind of what I was thinking. Shiro seemed too optimistic for me
I think you are just misunderstanding what I'm trying to say...;)

[Cirrus]

You do realize that there have been houses on top of the hills surrounding Barcelona for centuries, don't you?
This is nothing like American sprawlWhen it was built is not relevant to a discussion about the boundaries of urbanization. Nor is the fact that that there may be a train station at the bottom of the hill. The point is there is no clear boundary there between urban and rural, as you suggest exists everywhere in Europe.

The hostility is in response to your tone, which is bordering on arrogant. Perhaps I am misreading it. If so I apologize. But I don’t think I’m the only one.

[Cirrus]

BTW, check out (what I assume are) oil platforms in the North Sea and Persian Gulf on the image Brian posted back on the second page. Cool.

[david23]

Yeah Shiro, you are wrong about Albany. It's home to 900,000 people, although the city is home to only 95,000 people.

[FREKI]

Why all the blue lights in the North Sea? Surely the oil drilling platforms aren't so dense as to give off light comparable to midsize cities.Believe it or not but it is...

There was plenty of those "extra gas burners" in southern Iraq too... you wouldn't belive how much light they emit ( or polution for that matter :( )

Denmark, Norway and the UK produces some 6 millions of barrels a day in that area

[staff]

Copenhagen (approx. 1,4 million population on map)
vs
Lets say...Albany, NY (approx. 300,000 population on map? correct me if I'm wrong)

http://img480.imageshack.us/img480/3163/cphstafflg9.gif http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/5701/albanyao5.png
Make that 1,87 million and growing! :)

[SHiRO]

When it was built is not relevant to a discussion about the boundaries of urbanization. Nor is the fact that that there may be a train station at the bottom of the hill. The point is there is no clear boundary there between urban and rural, as you suggest exists everywhere in Europe.

The hostility is in response to your tone, which is bordering on arrogant. Perhaps I am misreading it. If so I apologize. But I don’t think I’m the only one.
Why is my tone arrogant? Why do people always get so defensive around here?
Didn't I say that the sprawl in Belgium was a mess (but it's still not American style suburban sprawl). Didn't I say that I DO consider these houses on mountain tops around Barcelona sprawl?

And there is a clear boundary between urban and rural. If left alone a mountain top with a few houses on it is rural. But around Barcelona many new houses are being built on mountain tops, but the thing is that it is all infill and the area only gets more dense because of it. It's nothing like American style sprawl, ever further away from the city with ever decreasing densities. There simply isn't any room for that in most of Europe, much less on mountain tops...
The cluster my family's house in would turn up red on these maps (and it actually does on the Barcelona map), a lone house on a mountain top white.

http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/2131/barcelonarg8.png
As you can see this map is pretty detailed, those clusters of houses on mountain tops are indeed visible. Barcelona has a lot of mountains around it, which is the reason for this type of suburbanization. But you wont see real auto oriented sprawled out suburbs, miles away from the city. In fact, Barcelona's suburbs are madly dense as well.

[SHiRO]

Yeah Shiro, you are wrong about Albany. It's home to 900,000 people, although the city is home to only 95,000 people.
Metro Albany is 900,000, however not that whole area is on that map. I guestimated something like 300,000 on that map, correct me if I'm wrong.
But that certainly isn't the whole metro area of Albany on that map.

[JManc]

that albany blob...

does it include troy and schenectady? kinda looks like it does with schenectady being the isolated area just above it and troy towards the southeast. if so, the population is probably closer to 600,000-700,000 with a total metro population of about a million.

also, apart from the cities themselves, upstate new york tends to be dotted with small villages surounding the cities. sprawly suburbs are a rarity there.

don't get mad at shiro. his people made albany. :yes:

[SHiRO]

that albany blob...

does it include troy and schenectady? kinda looks like it does with schenectady being the isolated area just above it and troy towards the southeast. if so, the population is probably closer to 600,000-700,000 with a total metro population of about a million.

also, apart from the cities themselves, upstate new york tends to be dotted with small villages surounding the cities. sprawly suburbs are a rarity there.

don't get mad at shiro. his people made albany. :yes:
Cirrus made those maps according to the Census definition of Urban Area which is >1000 ppsm I believe.
I scaled them down to 80 pixels = 20 km and colored them red.

This is the Albany MSA on the same scale with 875,583 inhabitants.

http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/6690/albanymsaiq1.png http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/5701/albanyao5.png
Seems that you are right with your estimate of 600,000-700,000.
Still, CPH puts a million more people on roughly the same area though (red area that is).
And there are over 5 million on that Barcelona map!



Albany used to be called Beavertown...:haha:

[FREKI]

This is the Albany MSA on the same scale with 875,583 inhabitants.

http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/6690/albanymsaiq1.png
This is Copenhagen with 1.831.751

http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/4752/amtpoptt0.gif

[PuyoPiyo]

If that was me, I will be very bad at that kind of work, GOOD JOB! ^0^

[Mister F]

I'd tend to agree with Shiro. One of the things that struck me about Europe was how abrupt the line between urban and rural was. The countryside is a lot more rural than in North America even though it's probably more dense. Something tells me you won't find anything like this in Europe:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v88/brighterhell/Miscellaneous/philly.jpg

I have a hard time even picturing what that would look like! Even in Canada, where we have our share of sprawl, that kind of development on that scale doesn't exist.

[JManc]

Seems that you are right with your estimate of 600,000-700,000.
Still, CPH puts a million more people on roughly the same area though (red area that is).


but then again, outside the 'major' cities (albany, troy, schenectady), that area primarily consists all smallish villages and towns (including amsterdam and rotterdam!) which tend to be separated by farms. hardly on the same level as copenhagen. but then again, i think people move to CPH to live near mr. d.

albany does have a taller building.

[MtnClimber]

The countryside is a lot more rural than in North America even though it's probably more dense. Something tells me you won't find anything like this in Europe:

I have a hard time even picturing what that would look like! Even in Canada, where we have our share of sprawl, that kind of development on that scale doesn't exist.


The countryside in Europe is more rural then North America? Your kidding me right. I have been an outdoorsman my whole life and have traveled many of places. Maybe on the east coast of US and Canada the countryside is not very rural, but I assure you America and Canada beat Europe hands down when it comes to rural and open spaces.

When it comes to auto oriented sprawl, yes US and Canada are worst. However everyone needs to remeber that North America is much larger and has much more open space then Europe. Europe had no choice but to be dense. If it acculumated more people I assure you there would be no room left there.

For instance Germany a nation of nearly 83 million people is only the size of Montana! Now if you had a nation the size of montana with neraly 100 million people do you think youd just let them live anywhere?

Have you ever been to the Alps before? They are dead. You dont even see animals anymore, they are very developed with sky trains and roads etc etc. NOw if you spend sometime in the canadian rockies, or the cascades, or the brookes range, St Elias of Alaska and many other western places of North America, you are talking about true wilderness.

There arent even any real wilderness areas left in western Europe. You can challenge me on this, and I assure you there are not. Have you ever driven across the Prairie provinces? Or North/South Dakota? These are vast swaths of land with hardly anyone living on them. So to say the country side of Europe is more rural is just not true.

I'm not advocating sprawl btw.

[JManc]

for no wildlife and tree times, make it europe time...

[village person]

MtnClimber, I have to disagree with you on the prairie. The prairie is one of the most raped ecosystems in North America. People often forget that agricultural sprawl is not wilderness. Open space, sure, but so is European countryside in that case.

The impression I always get from these areas is that, while there are certainly fewer people, the scope of human development is just as far-reaching if not moreso than the more populous Eastern half of the continent.

Saskatchewan:
http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/2861/prairie1zi0.jpg

Nebraska:
http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/2209/prairie2mz1.jpg

Texas panhandle:
http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/1387/prairie3py4.jpg

There's very little "prairie" left in the prairie.

[MtnClimber]

MtnClimber, I have to disagree with you on the prairie. The prairie is one of the most raped ecosystems in North America. People often forget that agricultural sprawl is not wilderness. Open space, sure, but so is European countryside in that case.

The impression I always get from these areas is that, while there are certainly fewer people, the scope of human development is just as far-reaching if not moreso than the more populous Eastern half of the continent.

.

I was not equating agricultural areas with wilderness. The point I was trying to make is that the country side in europe is not more rural then North America. But I do see what you are saying, agricultural areas are not exactly wilderenss. IF we could make a choice between farms and virgin forest. we should take virgin forest any day. However I stand by my previous statement regarding wilderness areas in Europe. There really are none left.

[LSyd]

very nice.

-

[cornholio]

MtnClimber, I have to disagree with you on the prairie. The prairie is one of the most raped ecosystems in North America. People often forget that agricultural sprawl is not wilderness. Open space, sure, but so is European countryside in that case.

The impression I always get from these areas is that, while there are certainly fewer people, the scope of human development is just as far-reaching if not moreso than the more populous Eastern half of the continent.

Saskatchewan:
http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/2861/prairie1zi0.jpg

Nebraska:
http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/2209/prairie2mz1.jpg

Texas panhandle:
http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/1387/prairie3py4.jpg

There's very little "prairie" left in the prairie.


Being someone who is born and lived in Czech Republic and has traveled all over Europe and now has lived most his life in Vancouver Canada and traveled all over North America I can honestly tell you that you have no idea what you are talking about. There are hardly any rural parts left in Europe, even the alps are hardly rural and wild. The only part of Europe that is realy rural is northern scandavania. Here in Vancouver, a city of 2.2 million we have had everything from cougars and bears in the city, infact there are parts of the suburbs and the metro green zone to the north where bears, cougars, etc live all year round. Not to mention the overpopulated coyotes, skunks, racoons, etc. that live within the city. I can go drive from Vancouver and go for hundreds of kilometers with out seeing any significant human development. The praries do have alot of farms on them, yet the wildlife that has always lived in the praries is still there(except the bison), there never was forests in those areas to begin with. I love Europe but to say that its more rural is beyond funy, I always have a laugh at some of my family when I go back to Czech republic and see them all excited about some wild forest etc, usualy a small patch of forest that has been taken care of and cleared for hundreds of years and has nothing in my opinion wild about it. Even the east coast is coast is considerablyt more rural then any part of western or central europe asnd most of eastern europe.

Edit: Id like to mention also that Europe realy has ben trying hard and doing a good job in trying to preserve and bring back what little rural areas there are left for the last couple of decades and has been doing a great job, infact i can safely say that they have been doing a beter job then NA, since NA realy takes its rural/wild areas forgranted since there are so many.

[MtnClimber]

Being someone who is born and lived in Czech Republic and has traveled all over Europe and now has lived most his life in Vancouver Canada and traveled all over North America I can honestly tell you that you have no idea what you are talking about. There are hardly any rural parts left in Europe, even the alps are hardly rural and wild. The only part of Europe that is realy rural is northern scandavania. Here in Vancouver, a city of 2.2 million we have had everything from cougars and bears in the city, infact there are parts of the suburbs and the metro green zone to the north where bears, cougars, etc live all year round. Not to mention the overpopulated coyotes, skunks, racoons, etc. that live within the city. I can go drive from Vancouver and go for hundreds of kilometers with out seeing any significant human development. The praries do have alot of farms on them, yet the wildlife that has always lived in the praries is still there(except the bison), there never was forests in those areas to begin with. I love Europe but to say that its more rural is beyond funy, I always have a laugh at some of my family when I go back to Czech republic and see them all excited about some wild forest etc, usualy a small patch of forest that has been taken care of and cleared for hundreds of years and has nothing in my opinion wild about it. Even the east coast is coast is considerablyt more rural then any part of western or central europe asnd most of eastern europe.

Cornholio me and you are in total agreement. See my comments above. Anyone who has spent sometime in the real outdoors knows that Europe really has no truly rural places left. In fact there really is no animal life in the alps period. Maybe a few squirrels and some cows.

Europe has basically made its so called "Wilderness" areas into theme parks. The most funny thing I have seen in my life is trams leading to the tops of beautiful mountains, while on the other side of the mountain people were climbing. One of the few places that are somewhat wild is northern scandanavia and maybe parts of bulgaria are less developed.

Recently a few buddies of mine took a 2 week climbing trip in the Waddington range of British Columbia, and as far as we and the helicopter pilot knew only 10 other people were even known to be in the area at the same time. WE are talking about massive areas of land with no inhabitants.

IMO the US and Canada has done alot more to protect its open spaces in the last century then Europe ever has. OF course North America is alot more sparse. Yes sprawl is an issue, I do not negate that. In defense of Europe I will say that most of the ecological damage done was done before people knew any better. And yes their cities can be a model for better living. We here in North America should take a good lesson from what has happend in Europe.

[village person]

Being someone who is born and lived in Czech Republic and has traveled all over Europe and now has lived most his life in Vancouver Canada and traveled all over North America I can honestly tell you that you have no idea what you are talking about. There are hardly any rural parts left in Europe, even the alps are hardly rural and wild. The only part of Europe that is realy rural is northern scandavania. Here in Vancouver, a city of 2.2 million we have had everything from cougars and bears in the city, infact there are parts of the suburbs and the metro green zone to the north where bears, cougars, etc live all year round. Not to mention the overpopulated coyotes, skunks, racoons, etc. that live within the city. I can go drive from Vancouver and go for hundreds of kilometers with out seeing any significant human development. The praries do have alot of farms on them, yet the wildlife that has always lived in the praries is still there(except the bison), there never was forests in those areas to begin with. I love Europe but to say that its more rural is beyond funy, I always have a laugh at some of my family when I go back to Czech republic and see them all excited about some wild forest etc, usualy a small patch of forest that has been taken care of and cleared for hundreds of years and has nothing in my opinion wild about it. Even the east coast is coast is considerablyt more rural then any part of western or central europe asnd most of eastern europe.

Edit: Id like to mention also that Europe realy has ben trying hard and doing a good job in trying to preserve and bring back what little rural areas there are left for the last couple of decades and has been doing a great job, infact i can safely say that they have been doing a beter job then NA, since NA realy takes its rural/wild areas forgranted since there are so many.

I'm a little confused. Did you quote the wrong post? :???: I wasn't making a point about Europe, nor refuting a point about Europe. And what does this have to do with Vancouver? I was making a small point about the prairie, which is indeed one of the most endangered ecosystems in the entire world.

Rural does not equal wilderness! These terms have separate meanings.
Rural defines a human system -- the "countryside," agriculture, logging, mining, etc. AND wilderness. Rural is not just those areas where people do not live; more often than not, it's actually a term that describes where people do live (agricultural areas). Farms and wilderness are not the same. Open space and wilderness are not the same. YES Europe has rural areas! The countryside! Farms! Wilderness? I didn't say anything about its wilderness or lack thereof, so...? :???:

I mean, yes, I agree that North America has far more wilderness than Europe (again, however, that is different from "rural"). And for all the other points MtnClimber made in the post I was responding to, I fully agree... I was just pointing out the bit about the prairie and how it's really not so wild nowadays. Still moreso than Europe's countryside, but not the natural asset for which we have the best reason to boast.

[JManc]

never been to continental europe (yet) but rural england reminded me of rural new york or new england minus the trailer parks but with more sheep.

[Mister F]

"Rural" doesn't mean "wilderness". Farmland is just as rural as mountains, even if it's not wilderness. The vast wilderness of western and northern North America has nothing to do with my argument.

I'll admit that my experience of Europe is mostly limited to the UK, mostly southern England and Wales. One of the things that struck me about development there is that almost everyone lives in a city, town, or village. Unplanned rural growth basically doesn't happen. When you leave a city or town in England you're immediately in countryside that's nothing but farms and small villages - hardly any development until you get to the next urban area. According to a government report called The State of the Countryside 2002, 92% of rural residents live within 2 km of a primary school - pretty much everyone is within walking distance of a school, ie within a town or village.

Here in Ontario it's completely different. When I leave a city there's commercial development strung out along rural highways (especially near cities) and estate lots are absolutely everywhere. Small towns struggle because they don't get investment, while in England small towns are where the rural development happens. Nowhere near 92% of rural residents live within walking distance of a school, in fact most children have to take school buses because they live scattered all over the country.

That's what I mean when I say European countryside is more rural - I'm talking about what you see in the countryside surrounding cities and towns. In much of North America the country is overrun with development, in Europe that's not the case, even in densly populated areas.

[pricemazda]

Outside of city states the UK has one of the highest levels of urbanisation in the world.

[Major AWACS]

never been to continental europe (yet) but rural england reminded me of rural new york or new england minus the trailer parks but with more sheep.

There are plenty of trailer parks in Europe. Here in South Limburg (and nordrhein westfalia ) There are trailer parks. The Dutch ones are quite entertaining. They actually have more mullets per capita than the States. The odd thing is you see confederate battle flags flying in them (no joke) that ads to the fun.

Europe can seem more rural because most cities, even small villages normally have a very well defined ending point. THe town literally ends at the sign.

In North America it is less pronounced and just gradually fades (or sprawls) away. THere is still wildlife in Europe, especially in the Dreilandpunt though much less than inthe past obviously.

Ciao, and Hook 'em Horns,
Capt-AWACS, Dutch RVs and German Autobahns don't mix

[SHiRO]

One of the things that struck me about development there is that almost everyone lives in a city, town, or village. Unplanned rural growth basically doesn't happen. When you leave a city or town in England you're immediately in countryside that's nothing but farms and small villages - hardly any development until you get to the next urban area. According to a government report called The State of the Countryside 2002, 92% of rural residents live within 2 km of a primary school - pretty much everyone is within walking distance of a school, ie within a town or village.

Here in Ontario it's completely different. When I leave a city there's commercial development strung out along rural highways (especially near cities) and estate lots are absolutely everywhere. Small towns struggle because they don't get investment, while in England small towns are where the rural development happens. Nowhere near 92% of rural residents live within walking distance of a school, in fact most children have to take school buses because they live scattered all over the country.

That's what I mean when I say European countryside is more rural - I'm talking about what you see in the countryside surrounding cities and towns. In much of North America the country is overrun with development, in Europe that's not the case, even in densly populated areas.
Thanks for confirming what I've been saying all along.

[SHiRO]

There are plenty of trailer parks in Europe. Here in South Limburg (and nordrhein westfalia ) There are trailer parks. The Dutch ones are quite entertaining. They actually have more mullets per capita than the States. The odd thing is you see confederate battle flags flying in them (no joke) that ads to the fun.

Vinkenslag in Maastricht is the biggest and most prolific in NL.
But they are few and far between and disappearing rapidly.

[waterloowarrior]

urban sprawl in Europe - The Ignored Challenge (http://reports.eea.europa.eu/eea_report_2006_10/en/eea_report_10_2006.pdf)
http://reports.eea.europa.eu/eea_report_2006_10/cover.jpg

a good read... this is a solid report with lots of relevant data and maps


Edit: The Abstract

The growth of cities in Europe has historically been driven by increasing urban populations. However, today, even where there is little or no population pressure, a variety of factors are still driving urban sprawl. These are rooted in the desire to realise new lifestyles in suburban environments, outside the inner city.

The mixture of forces behind these trends include both micro and macro socio-economic trends, which are resulting in sprawling cities all over Europe. The strategies and instruments to control sprawl strongly depend on today's realities of multiple and interacting levels of governance, from local to European. This is particularly true with regard to the substantial financial flows that shape planning budgets.

At present, planning policies often reflect the logic of the market. They would better reflect a vision of urban development, in which environmental and social considerations are fully embedded in spatial planning policies at all steps of the policy cycle from problem identification and policy design through to the implementation and ex-post evaluation stages.

[Major AWACS]

Vinkenslag in Maastricht is the biggest and most prolific in NL.
But they are few and far between and disappearing rapidly.

I wouldn't say rapidly disappearing, maybe in the North. There are two in Brunssum and two in Sittard, right by where I live. The real ratty one literally on the border is expanding as is one in Brunssum. To be fair one just outside the JFC Brunnsum front gate is "nice" by trailer standards with bricked porch facades and flowers and all that but you can still see it is a trailer park.

There is also one you can see on the Sittard to AMS train run, just outside Eindhoven.

Ciao, and Hook 'em Horns,
Capt-AWACS, De Limburgers heten u welkom

[JManc]

dutch trailer parks with mullets and rebel flags!?

shiro, we must see this! to hell with seeing the hague!

[Canasian]

Interesting how little urbanization Austria has with the exception of Wein/Vienna

[Jeff_in_Dayton]

Dutch trailer parks with mullets and rebel flags!?

shiro, we must see this! to hell with seeing the hague!

We also want pix.

(btw, there is also this Euro-redneck thing going on in Germany, too, to some degree).

[Swede]

^Bah! that's nothing. The American 50s fashion/music/... is alive and kicking in rural (northern) Sweden. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raggare

[JManc]

^Bah! that's nothing. The American 50s fashion/music/... is alive and kicking in rural (northern) Sweden. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raggare

http://www.exmusic.de/prodpic/090204248926.jpg

:hell:

[Major AWACS]

Well I'm flying Amsterdam-Houston tomorrow but I can get pics on my return post new years. I can test out my new digital camera on the trailers ;)

Ciao, and Hook 'em Horns,
Capt-AWACS, If all else fails press a button

[KingKrunch]

http://www.exmusic.de/prodpic/090204248926.jpg

:hell:

That was like 10 years ago ... ah the memories ... :haha:

[SHiRO]

dutch trailer parks with mullets and rebel flags!?

shiro, we must see this! to hell with seeing the hague!
Hmmm...

http://www.2and2.net/Uploads/Images/Vinkenslag.jpg
(this is Vinkenslag btw)


vs


http://img363.imageshack.us/img363/2463/l02060182020den20haagow0.jpg

Tough decision...:D