In which of the 20 largest cities you'd agree to live? Multi-answer poll.

Sonic · January 17, 2003, 10:49

Well, in which of those cities (20 largest (by population) in the world) you'd agree to live if someone offered you to do so? Please check ones you'd like to live and don't check ones you wouldn't like to live.

Buck Birdseed · January 17, 2003, 11:09

All of those with reasonably democratic values, ie. all except the ones in china. The only other one I'm not sure about is LA, I hear it's quite boring. Of those I've been to from this list, I'd probably least like to live in Cairo, but anything is better than York really.

Solly · January 17, 2003, 11:11

None.

S. Kroeze · January 17, 2003, 11:19

It surprises me that London is not among the world's largest cities.
Are you sure?

Solly · January 17, 2003, 11:20

The population of British cities is never calculated correctly due to tight administrative boundaries.

Sonic · January 17, 2003, 11:26

In this listing cities are counted along with suburbs they are truly united (thus for example Tokyo is counted along with Yokohama, as they are united by their boundaries). Administrative boundaries doesn't means much here. London has population of 7 million according to this source.

Buck Birdseed · January 17, 2003, 11:26

I know, it's awful. In fact, here's a Search Engine Challenge: find me the correct populations of the largest british cities by the population of the actual urban area. It's impossible, I've tried.

Buck Birdseed · January 17, 2003, 11:27

It's a bad source then, as London has a population of just uder 12m if you count the whole urban area.

Boris Godunov · January 17, 2003, 11:29

New York (fancy that!), Rio and Paris are it on this list. I would also happily live in Rome, London or Berlin. Prague and Vienna would also be on the list. In terms of other major U.S. cities, I would say Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, San Diego and Washington are the only ones I'd consider.

Imran Siddiqui · January 17, 2003, 11:35

New York, Beijing, Rio de Janero, Paris, Tokyo, Los Angeles, and Seoul.

BeBro · January 17, 2003, 11:36

Just curious - is this a complete list of the 20 biggest cities?

I ask because when I was in Egypt they said it (edit: err...Cairo of course) is the world´s fourth largest city (ca. 16-18 million inhabitants)...

Or is that your personal choice.

Oh, and to answer - I´m pretty satisfied in Berlin, but Paris, London or New York would certainly also be good.

axi · January 17, 2003, 11:36

Right now, I'd rather go to Buenos Aires...
Paris is cool...
Mexico City and Rio too...

I wouldn't prefer an Arab, Chinese, Indian or American metropolis.

SlowwHand · January 17, 2003, 11:39

And we wouldn't prefer you, Axi.

Dauphin · January 17, 2003, 11:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
It's a bad source then, as London has a population of just uder 12m if you count the whole urban area.

The census puts the population of Greater London, including all the boroughs, at 7,172,036.

The commuter belt extends outside, but if you start using that measure you may aswell count the whole of southeast England.

Sonic · January 17, 2003, 11:46

BeBro, yes, this is true list of 1998.
Note that there are several types of counting population in cities.
First one is "official population", which is not realistic, since some cities does count whole population as official and some doesn't (for example NYC is officially made of several cities (Brooklin, Manhetten, Jersey, etc.), thus official NYC population isn't that high. While official Sydney population as an example is just 40'000 because only the downtown of Sydney is called Sydney, other parts of it are treated like separate cities).
Second way to count population is the one which is used here. It counts all the suburbs that are directly connected to city or to suburbs that are connected with city. It doesn't takes into account sometimes stupid official city borders. But however if suburb is away from city by even small distance, it isn't considered part of city this way.
Third type of counting populations is just counting either population in some radius from city centre or on some radius from city borders (for example, full city and 30km from it's borders). This is best for plan in which city to open bussines or plan airport locations, etc., but it isn't realistic.

chequita guevara · January 17, 2003, 11:56

New York, Paris, Tokyo, and Seoul.

I'm kinda limited in my choices because many of those cities have severe air quality problems, what with me being asthmatic and all. A lot of the Third World cities also have additional problems such as corrupt and thuggish police, heavy crime, unstable governments, bad water, etc.

Boris Godunov · January 17, 2003, 12:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin

The census puts the population of Greater London, including all the boroughs, at 7,172,036.

The commuter belt extends outside, but if you start using that measure you may aswell count the whole of southeast England.

I'm interested in how they are counting NY's population then. The last census had the population of New York, which was counting all the burroughs, as just over 8 million. The 16 million figure would seem to be counting satellite townships in the commuter belt.

SpencerH · January 17, 2003, 12:02

I've grown so used to living in small towns or semi-rural cities that I dont think I'd want to live in a big city anymore.

chequita guevara · January 17, 2003, 12:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I'm interested in how they are counting NY's population then.

Add the suburbs.

Solly · January 17, 2003, 12:05

For example, my official address' third line is Manchester, and yet I live in the city of Salford..

Harovan · January 17, 2003, 12:09

None of them, I don't like big cities.

Solly · January 17, 2003, 12:13

Me neither.

But I said that already ant a.

Boris Godunov · January 17, 2003, 12:30

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Add the suburbs.

Seems to be rather arbitrary if they aren't counting the suburbs of London...

Spiffor · January 17, 2003, 12:43

I think they are counting the suburbs of London (read SG's post)

As for my answers : Paris (duh), NY, Tokyo and Osaka.

Richelieu · January 17, 2003, 12:52

I'm a small town boy myself but i'd consider Paris (ze rive-gauche, ze parisiennes, etc...) NY (Cuz its NY) and Tokyo (I'd like to get a feel for the culture).

edit : spel.

Solly · January 17, 2003, 12:52

The problem with suburbs in the UK is that cities are so close to each other.

For example, Manchester is either the second or third biggest city in the UK depending on the definition you take, and its "suburbs" include Salford whose centre is just two miles from Manchester's.

Boris Godunov · January 17, 2003, 12:59

Exactly. If they are counting Hoboken, Jersey City or (worse) Newark as NY suburbs, I'd think that was being inaccurate.

Sonic · January 17, 2003, 13:01

Boris, why? Jersey, Hoboken, are just a river away from Manhetten. As I said before, suburbs are considered part of town if they connects with it...

FrustratedPoet · January 17, 2003, 13:03

From that list, just Paris.
I'd also like to live in Prague ... in fact I'd probably move there tomorrow if I had a job there and if I spoke Czech.

Dauphin · January 17, 2003, 13:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Sonic
Boris, why? Jersey, Hoboken, are just a river away from Manhetten. As I said before, suburbs are considered part of town if they connects with it...

London has masses of green belt land around it designed to prevent urban sprawl. This gives 'unfair' comparison with cities like LA and NY which are in effect counted as their associated conurbations.