Quote:
Originally Posted by Docere
Some Torontonians are adamant about the "Golden Horseshoe" definition. I don't know why. Having more people commuting in to the GTA from Niagara or Kitchener-Waterloo-Cambridge does absolutely nothing in terms of enhancing Toronto's urban experience or stature. It doesn't make a difference in terms of whether the city is Alpha or Alpha-minus. So I don't really care that much if it's more Atlanta-sized or Chicago-sized.
|
More people coming into a city will most certainly have an impact on the built form of a city. Crossrail as an example, will bring a further 1 million people to within 45 minutes of Central London; that is a win for employers who will have access to an even larger talent pool, and it is a win for employees who have access to more job opportunities. More activity requires more offices, restaurants, cafes, etc… Interactions whether for business or leisure purposes enhances the urban experience in profound ways. At the same time, there is reciprocal development beyond the city (e.g. residential around commuter stations). This is the agglomeration effect.
If there is not the infrastructure however then this is a moot point because these connections cannot be made.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Docere
Using a London and Home Counties definition - Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Essex, Kent, Surrey - comes to 4.2 million.
|
Using the latest 2019 figures for London and the Home Counties (including the Unitary Authorities which sit inside the ceremonial counties, e.g. Medway in Kent) you get to a foreign-born population (FBP) figure of 4.5mn.
Using the Home Counties is convenient, but it is a volatile area for measurement which includes distinct communities distant from London and lacking connections, whilst overlooking areas that do have strong links with London (e.g. London Gatwick airport, the Thameslink corridor, etc…). Kent and Essex for reference cover a vast area, each 50% larger than Suffolk, which is itself 50% larger than the next NY MSA county. The Home Counties (and their districts) are also not urban in the sense that New York MSA counties are and the data isn’t broken down more comprehensively.
Either way the cake is cut, currently the population and FBP of London’s metro area is below that of New York.
That could change though, as London and the surrounding areas (let’s say the Home Counties) are growing at a far faster rate: between 2011-2019 the population of London and the Home Counties (excluding London) expanded by 809,000 and 455,000 respectively; a total increase of 1.26mn (158,000pa). In contrast, the New York MSA (2010-2019) expanded by 306,000 (34,000 pa).
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
If you calculate the density each NY MSA county (minus NYC) and average them the density is 2,795 people per square mile. Interestingly, if you calculate the density of London Metro minus Greater London, the density is 2,629 people per square mile. So the average NY suburban county is slightly more dense than London Metro excluding Greater London.
|
Muppet is both correct and wrong. From a strictly population divided by area measure he is incorrect as you highlight.
From a built-up/urban area coverage perspective it flips the other way as the counties and districts around London are noticeably far less urban than their New York MSA county counterparts; a direct consequence of the Green Belt and other anti-sprawl measures. Development and population is far more concentrated, typically in settlements where there is a railway station, which is why the London commuter rail network is so much larger and more utilised than the New York commuter rail network.