Home > General Topics > Economics > Largest Cities in North America By Population

Largest Cities in North America By Population

  1. All places where you don't want to be during a sovereign debt induced economic collapse.
     
  2. These things keep surprising me ...

    (I'd have put money on Mexico City having a larger population than NYC; I thought Toronto had more population than Montreal, but I've still have guessed Montreal much higher than 19th, overall [​IMG] ).
     
  3. I would like to know how they calculated the population of New York City as 23+ million. I understand that they are including some of the surrounding areas, but if you add the population of NYC (8.5 million) + Westchester (0.9 million) + New Jersey (8.8 million) + Connecticut (3.6 million) it only adds up to 21.8 million, and I would estimate that less than half of New Jersey and Connecticut is anywhere near NYC.
     
  4. The numbers look like Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA)...at least for the US. That's defined by the census bureau. No one has ever come up with a good definition of this in my opinion--at least not any that's been widely adopted.

    [​IMG]
     
  5. Yep, you are right. The map shows that they include all of New Jersey, Connecticut, Westchester and Long Island. There is a lot of farm land and forest that they include in New York CITY.
     
  6. Back in the day they called it the "tri-state area". Seems about right that it would be the most populated metro area in the US.
     
  7. Perhaps they count the entire state of NY as NYC?
     
  8. Population of each "City" should be population WITHIN the city limits, for NYC, it would be the five boroughs which is about 8 million. "Metropolitan" population appears to include many jurisdictions and townships.
     
  9. 1. What is the point of this thread?
    2. Can we start one about the longest rivers on Earth?
    3. There is city limits and metro areas, 2 different things.
     
  10. Haha, you've just insulted every NYCer out there. They all hate "upstaters" because they "support" the rest of the state financially. As they say.
     
  11. In the UK we stupidly include as a "city" any town which has been granted city status by letters patent whatever that means or royal charter. So small market towns like Salisbury (population 40,000) squeak in. Salisbury (charming) is certainly larger than Midsomer Grasscrap-in-the-Marsh but it cannot sit alongside New York or Mexico City in any list.

    We also count population in local authority areas only, ignoring what's on the ground. So though the person travelling between Manchester and Salford would see no break in the urban development around them, these are apparently separate cities.

    My own personal definition of a city is any continuous urban area large enough to have districts referred to by compass direction - so, the south side, the west end, south London, north Liverpool etc.
     

  12. Quite so - and to a foreigner, this is bizarre. I lived in England for (parts of) 8 years and could never really understand it.



    It's lovely - I've been there once, and walked along the "Cathedral Close" (where the late Sir Edward Heath's house is).

    In response to these posts from Dealmaker, I've been looking at some UK population figures and realised how hugely estimates vary, according to definitions and sources. Wikipedia, for example, on different pages, says that the population of Leeds is greater than that of Manchester (I'm absolutely sure this must be true), and that the population of Manchester is over two million while that of Leeds is under one million! Obviously there's something not quite right about all that "information" and the answer there appears to depend on the definition of the areas of "metropolitan boroughs".

    So I'm now starting to think that maybe I was right, after all, in imagining that the population of Mexico City is higher than that of NYC.

    Not that we Aspies are obsessed by numbers, or anything ... [​IMG]
     
  13. You're right Xela, so much about the UK is damn confusing. Unless they've lived here people will find it very odd the population of the City of London is 7,500!
     
  14. According to wiki, 300,000 people commute to and work there and 9,401 people live there.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London
     
  15. 7,500 or 9,400: it doesn't matter - the point is that it's a tiny number because "the City" is actually a tiny area, of which very little comprises residential property.
     
  16. It isn't. London has been calling them all in for decades. :)



    Sorry, I cannot help myself.