Talk:Megalopolis (city type)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article covers subjects of relevance to WikiProject Urban studies and planning, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia.
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.

---Developed does not mean that the city itself is MODERN. It means that the land in between cities has become a citylike in itself, as opposed to rural in nature.

[edit] ChiPitts

Why is the ChiPitts megalopolis quoted at 54 million people, when its own link shows it at a little over 30 million people (38 million including Toronto-Windsor)? Most of the other sources that I've seen for various demographic agencies also have it in the 30-35 million people range. Billzav. 25 Apr 2007


Megalopolis as a common noun has gained some traction beyond the original BosWash (BosWash/ChiPitts/SanSan) idea. Probably because it sounds more impressive than conurbation. Saying the Megalopolis is from New York to Washington has a parochial ring to it, which is probably why other editors made those edits. I'm not even sure if Gottman included ChiPitts and SanSan or whether those crept in later.
Perhaps the article should be incorporated with conurbation or megacity as one (or three) example(s). I can't say that there's a problem with the reverse (there is no metrocity to contrast with metropolis), except for the possibility of an edit war.
The notion of continuity, however, seems a bit off. There are few real-world examples that are truly continuous, and those that are may not quite conform to the statistics (not to mention popular notions) associated with them.
.s
X ile 08:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC) - Talk

[edit] This article is ridiculous

It is full of nothing but rank speculation as to what does and doesn't constitute a megalopolis, with almost no substantial sources. The concept that a belt of socio-economic interest exists between Chicago and Pittsburgh is true. However, it is not by any stretch of the definition a megalapolis - there are vast tracts of farmland and wilderness in between! And REALLY, claiming that everything between Manchester UK, Paris, and Hamburg is one gigantic megalopolis is patently absurd. Using these criteria you can claim that any stretch of land between any two or three cities, no matter how distant, is a megalopolis. -67.85.183.103 06:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that the article is ridiculous, but it clearly needs some work. You're IP suggests the Northeastern United States, as does your opinion. Samuel van Valkenburg and Colbert Held have applied Von Thunen's model to Europe and that patent absurdity, as you say, is utterly conventional in urban geography. See Fig. 1-6 here [1]. Appropriate sources defining the area as a megalopolis are likely to be far fewer than those defining it as the more generic conurbation or (what appears to be the emerging WP concensus) megacity.
As for ChiPitts, there are, of course, tracts of farmland and wilderness that break up strict continuity, which is why I have tweaked the definition in the intro. There are significant discontinuities because of physical and social considerations. That being said, The region's population density far exceeds what is readily observable on the vast majority of the Earth's land area. Relative to coastal east Asia and the Huang He and Chang Jiang valleys, ChiPitts may as well be Amazonia, but megalopolis, conurbation, and megacity need to be considered from a global perspective in a WP article.
It is more a matter of the relative size or "metropolitan-ness", if you will, of a city (or similar division) than just any "two or three cities" and how they function as a unit that would constitute a megalopolitan model. There are incorporated cities in the United States, and clearly within the Northeastern Megalopolis, that have only a few thousand people, so it is not any two or three cities that could be claimed to be a megalopolis--even if they were adjacent to each other and functionally inseparable. Consider a cluster of five incorporated U.S. cities with 6-7,000 people and their respective outskirts. That could not even meet the U.S. Census definition of a Metropolitan Statistical Area, much less be considered a megalopolis under the article's prior or current definition.
Having looked at some of the other links at the bottom of the article, this and the list of megalopolies are in a pretty sad state in terms of appearance, linking, and consistency. Those and the others need some fact-checking (badly). I've spent enough time on this dispatch, which could have been better spent. I will be getting back to these articles, hopefully before the end of the month (due to connection and hardware problems). Unfortunately, I'll probably have to flag for U.S.-centrism, because I don't know much about non-U.S. urban geography.
I have also removed references in the intro to some cities that are clustered together, but not particularly relevant (undue weight) to the idea of a "chain" of metropolitan areas. (See http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/metro_general/List6.txt for current U.S. Census/Office of Management and Budget scheme.) There does seem to be a bit of POV creep relating to ChiPitts, but correcting it would require too much work for me right now.
Any help or comments on the above will be appreciated.
.s
X ile 07:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC) - Talk
I live in the middle of the "Blue Banana" and I agree that applying any term that is in any way related to the concept of the city to it is patent absurdity with knobs on. Some people can't resist over-extending concepts in this field to a quite comical extent. 82.18.125.219 15:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

From where exactly did the writer of this article come up with Mumbai and Pune being a megapolis? That is beyond absurd, there is a friggin mountain range between the two cities. They are both very distinct and are in no way like a megapolis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.168.97 (talk) 11:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)