Talk:Megalopolis (city type)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
|
||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. | ||
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the assessment scale. |
Disagree -- Do not replace megacity with megalopolis; they are not interchangeable. The term "megacity" is distinct from "megalopolis" in that the etymology of "city" and "polis" differ. A "polis" confuses a city and the state within which it is located. Indeed, the concept of polis rings classical with both political and geographical meaning. The term "city" offers no such confusion. It is a single, politically governed collection of inhabitants.
--agree--Afa86 20:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I'll keep an eye on the page; it needs work and clarification. The term "megalopolis" has a strict definition, which would apply to three geographic areas. Here the term is being applied to some other US urban areas not included in that original use of the term, and there are others not mentioned here that would also merit mention, at least at the same level.
I would suggest keeping this article limited to the strict original definition of "megalopolis," and shifting any others to "megacity;" and any emergent or developing areas (like the Texas areas mentioned, the Florida coasts or the Atlanta-Raleigh stretch of the Southeast US) be included in an "emergent megacity" sub-heading in the "megacity" article.~~David Alston~~
I would also like to see "Megalopolis" kept separate from "Megacity". Megalopolis strictly defines the area on the US Eastern Seaboard, while Megacity can be used for any large, urbanized area. -Ed Callens
-
- Agree as above, the terms are no interchangeable. Bjrobinson 21:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I think that the Ruhr-area (Germany), the Randstad (the Netherlands, incl. the Brabantse stedenrij and the Knooppunt Arnhem-Nijmegen agglomerations), the Flemish Diamond (Belgium), Ile de France (France), the London-area (England, UK), as wel as several 'smaller' agglomerations like the Meuse-Rhine Euregion (Germany, Netherlands, Belgium), and the Lille-Kortrijk-Tournai Euregion (France, Belgium), should also be included in this list. This conurbation of agglomerations has a total of between the 50 and 60 million (at least), and is comparable with the US-BosWash, and can be considered the EU-BosWash. Is it an option to include this 'megalopolis' in this list? Rob--84.104.123.100 12:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Is Megalopolis actually an academic term that governments use? There are not many citations in the article that suggest this. I kind of get the feeling that any 3 or 4 mediocre cities within 100 miles of each can band together and boost there own egos by calling themselve a 'megalopolis'. Not all of the cities cited as examples fit into the following description: "an extensive metropolitan area or a long chain of continuous metropolitan areas." Many have rural districts or even wilderness in between tham. I realise a megalopolis is not the same thing as a conurbation, and the criteria seems to be any cities with strong economic/transport links. The problem with this criteria is that it makes most of Europe, East Asia, N.America a 'Megalopolis'. It may be that I have a problem with the term, rather than the actual article, but as the term is not adequately described (there is just a long list of examples) I cannot be sure. Shane1. 16 Feb 2007
- At least in Mexico, the metropolitan environmental commission for Mexico City (PROAIRE) picked up the term (and its synonym "regional ring of cities") and used it in a couple of publications. However, neither the National Institute of Statistics nor the Population Council have used it in their reports. --theDúnadan 16:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
No opinion about the terms. But the statement about three areas of China is very inaccurate. It lists Beijing-Tianjin-Tangshan in "Well developed megalopoleis", and describes the Pearl River Delta (PRD) as "considered a megalopolis," and Yangtze River Delta as "also be considered a megalopolis, thoug far less developed compared to the Pearl River Delta." The Beijing-Tianjin-Tangshan area is far far less devloped than both Pearl River Delta and Yangtze River Delta (out of question, Beijing area is out of the question). When comparing Pearl vs. Yangtze, those two areas at most can be said about equal. Just check out the links for cities under each area and do your math about their areas, populations, GDPs etc. Apparently, Hong Hong is by far the most developed city of whole China; but even that there is argument about who is the most important economy powerhouse right now in China (Hong Kong vs. Shanghai). Also, don't forget living cost or purchasing power even within mainland China. I don't go any further about anything on single city of those areas. But I'm kind of wondering who wrote this part. I guess it could be a Westerner or marginal Chinese (such as ABC etc.). No dicrimination or anything like that. But as I had lived in China for several decades and have been in the States for almost a decade, I feel it kind of puzzling me that many Americans have pretty much misunderstanding about what's the fact, what's the fiction about China, even for very basic things. And that includes those who travelled to China or make Chinese as their friends. For example, if asking Americans name two most famous/familiar/important things about China, many would say Beijing and the Great Wall. Yes, Beijing for sure as it's the capital, but Great Wall? Come on, China has too many things more important than that. I'm not going to blame anyone/country/..., but there are pretty much mistandings/bias like that. As an average Joe who works for a living, that's fine. But in case you are investing, doing business, ...even remotely connected with China, that could be very very dangerous for such misjudgement, one day.
