Why does Europe have so few megacities (urban areas of 10+ million)? It only has London, Paris, and Moscow...

Why does Europe have so few megacities (urban areas of 10+ million)? It only has London, Paris, and Moscow. Istanbul doesn't really count, since half is in Asia. Why didn't Italy, Spain, or Germany develop any megacities?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auckland_volcanic_field
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_regions_by_GDP
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_regions_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/sadiq-khan-london-mayor-terrorism-attacks-part-and-parcel-major-cities-new-york-bombing-a7322846.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

and what exactly would be the purpose of a "megacity"?

by your definition I live in one btw

Theres no real need for megacities. A lot of smaller cities nearby each other, one swelling massively would be impractical.

>there are cities with more people than my entire country

Because London is love, London is life.

I live in the blue banana so i dont know what youre talking about
>The Blue Banana (also known as the European Megalopolis or the Manchester–Milan Axis) is a discontinuous corridor of urbanisation in Western Europe, with a population of around 111 million
Its crowded here m8

cities are disgusting

>my city has 3 (three) times your country's population

They aren't strictly "necessary," it's just that they tend to develop when countries urbanize.

Europe has 3 megacities for almost 750 million people.

South America has at least 3 for 422 million (BA, SP, and Rio) and possibly 5, depending on how you count Lima and Bogota's populations.

delet this

It's pretty hard to be anywhere not within walking distance of a city over here in the ol' banana

>the Tokyo Metro area has over 33 million people in it

>Swamp/rhineniggers live like sardines with the same pop density as England, minus her green & pleasant lands
Sad!

You still have a "large" urban area, which means 1+ million, though. Lots of countries don't.

what's actually surprising is that my CITY has pretty much the same population as Denmark, Norway, Finland, Iceland and Greenland COMBINED.

>looking up Buenos Aires
>city pop almost 3 million
>that's not that much...
>metro pop 12.8 million
>wow how much does Argentina have
>41.5 million
>wow that is a big country
>Colombia 47 million
wat

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auckland_volcanic_field
not for long

Because Germany isn't centralized like the UK or France. We're more like the US (federalism) with multiple bigger cities than a single megacity.

>Urban sprawl, especially between 1945 and 1980, created a vast conurbation of 9,910,282 inhabitants in the 24 conurbated partidos, as of 2010, and a total of 12,801,365 including the City of Buenos Aires, a third of the total population of Argentina and generating more than half of the country's GDP.

Shit that's way, way bigger than I thought it was. Google had told me like 3-4 million before which I thought didn't seem unreasonable.

because the countries that you mentioned are huge: france, the uk, russia all have large populations and large cities.
Having a giant city doesn't centralize them.

If some smaller countries had "a Paris, London or Moscow", it would make other cities so irrelevant and different that there would be a massive difference in culture and economy between the megacity and some random smaller city.

Even in Russia, this is the case. Look at pic related. The dicrepancy is insane!

yeah it's a bit confusing because the proper city has 2.5 million, but the greater Buenos Aires is fucking massive, a third of the country lives here.
that data is like 10 years old though (last census was in 2010)
it is estimated that now the metro population is between 15 and 16 million.

I don't get it, what is it that you don't believe/understand?

I just can't believe that your country is so shit!

>There's no wilderness in Benelux!

Oh?

I know right?
it even looks like that shithole in Europe with the french """people"""

wew lad

Germany is historically all about decentralization and little cities literally everywhere while France is the opposite, concentrating all power in Paris
They still have more people overall regardless (66mil for France and 80 mil for Germany)
Netherlands is like them too

And Spain i don't know why the hell it's so empty ? It surprised me how they have so few people, 46 mil apparently.

>Germany develop any megacities?

Rhein-Ruhr area has 15 million people, gringo.

Ok, so I found this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_regions_by_GDP

according to this Prague and Bratislava are richer than any region in Sweden and many other rich regions of Europe.

How is this possible. WTF???

pls respond

Are there any good BsAs property portals to look at? I'm curious now. What is the richest pardito and best place to live centrally?

There's no wilderness in europe apart from Polish/Belarussian border, where the Bison still roam. Belgian/Dutch/German villages are usually more beautiful than their English counterparts, but I prefer our clay

But with Spics instead of Muslims, so it's better in that way I suppose. Maybe.

Probably because Prague and Bratislava have their own political division including just the city and not everything the poorest areas around them. If you include only the richest part of a whole region (the city intself) it will have a very high GDP per capita. I'm sure if for example Barcelona had it's own region (instead of all of Catalonia) it would be almost at the top of the list. For the same reason "Inner London" (I guess it's the City) has over 250.000, because you are exclusively counting an area where there are a shitload of companies (high GDP) and very few people living there.

It comes down to how political subdvisions are drawn.

>Are there any good BsAs property portals to look at?
I wouldn't know, you're gonna have to search on your own

>What is the richest pardito and best place to live centrally?
Buenos Aires city is divided in neighborhoods (comunas), not partidos.
greater Buenos Aires is in Buenos Aires province, and it's divided in partidos.
a general rule would be that the north is rich and safe in general while the south is basically where the working class live, with the exception of the Retiro neighborhood in the north where you'd find the biggest ghetto in the country.

Most people live Madrid, the two coasts and relatively big cities. The rest of the country is quite empty with only little villages.

That's a "conglomeration," not a real city/urban area. Not every "Metropolregion" is a city. That's like calling the Randstad a single city.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_regions_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

higher than any region in: Norway, Austria, Denmark, Netherlands? On the level with top US regions?

Yes. It's pretty easy to make yuge GDP per Capita by narrowing the political divisions down to the most productive areas of the country and leaving out residential areas and suburbs out. This way you only have to divide the high GDP among few residents -> high GDP per Capita.

What's your point? You are using an inconsistent definition. At one point London and Westminster use d to be different cities, too.

Wtf Chile?

Never would have guessed that gdp per capita in Slovak, Czech and Chilean cities would be america tier.

>most productive areas of the country and leaving out residential areas and suburbs out
but these are the entire cities of Prague and Bratislava, including commieblocks

Czechia besides 3 cities is a wasteland where dogs bark with their asses m8, without Prague it would be Russia tier

alright, but why is it in the top of european gdp per capita?
why is it america tier?

would sooner guess that Warsaw or Krakow would be instead 2bh.
Not even memeing

Eastern bank Warsaw is kinda shitty, maybe that's what drags down the average, I dunno

Kraków doesn't have that skyscraper district to make it internationally rich

Antofagasta is the mining region.

It's a huge shithole despite the income.

because only france and england were large and have existed united long enough for those cities to form, germany, italy and spain were fragmented and which kingdom had their own cities already

What's the appeal of megacities ?

>st petersburg alone has almost as much people as whole finland

Cities larger than 100k are disgusting

>would sooner guess that Warsaw or Krakow would be instead 2bh.
Warsaw is not on the list. Mazovia is and it includes the surrounding region.

Warsaw is not even on his list.

They just redistribute everything to one area that's low in population

Lol, most of European countries are smaller than Moscow. That's why most of Russians describe Europe as village after traveling there pointing out only London as a decent place.
>Moscow
We aren't Europe, you retard. Idk, have you noticed that in every thread where Russia is claimed to be Europe Russians tell you stupid westerners we are not? Will you ever stop that shit?
As for Moscow it's a usual thing for developing countries, to have one megalopolis developing while rest of the country is not. Centralized rule, our economy structure and tax system, urbanization process still going on - all that makes Moscow a megalopolis of 15 millions population. I guess it's the same with Mexico city for example.

Down there growth rate is 0%
Inside the cities it tends to a negative value

>tfw living exactly in the center of the blue banana
seems good

Megacities produce more GDP, scientific and technical advances, and cultural products than anywhere else. They're the wave of the future.

they also have a high crime/homicide rate

Not particularly. Tokyo's murder rate is lower than most Euro nations, and it is gigantic. NYC's murder rate is below the US national average. Moscow is below the Russian average.

>they also have a high crime/homicide rate
Only if you choose to house niggers in them.

>without Prague it would be Russia tier
without Prague Czech rep. would be utopia
>no tourists
>no foreigners
>no Praguers
>super irrelevant thus super peaceful

>have you noticed that in every thread where Russia is claimed to be Europe Russians tell you stupid westerners we are not?
It's only you retard samefagging. You can live in your imaginary Sub-Saharan Moscow but for mentally sane people it's clearly a European city.

highly dense cities are shit

unless you're pushed for land (Hong Kong, Singapore, Gibraltar) there's no reason to have one

>highly dense cities are shit
highly dense cities without history or culture, overflown with non-whites are shit

Having nice house near the river in city centre of Prague, overlooking the bridges and those tiny island parks is top

no, they're shit

>implying you wouldnt give your left nut for this house

Not really, I like where I live too much

>implying you wouldnt want to puff a ciggy on your personal bridge behind the house

megacities were a mistake

delete this thread or spend 3 years in the iso cubes.

not really, european cities do nothing for me

maybe it's because you bombed our cities in WW2, you shitheads?
we would already have istanbul, paris, london and moscow now if it wasn't for you

[Cites Japan]

well what can I say, anglos were never considered to be smart
props to you for keeping the stereotype going

>maybe it's because you bombed our cities in WW2, you shitheads?
this desu, if eternal anglo didnt come up with bombing the populus instead of armies
Germany would now be so much nicer place. Same goes for the entire Western Bohemia (funny how cities in the west got bombed to shit,
while cities in the east -where Russians were, remained intact)

Anglos are the shitstain on the mother Earth.

Nothing, they're disgustingly inhuman.

I'm quite sure this map is inaccurate, at least when it comes to Sweden south of Stockholm.

Because Megacities are for subhumans

Tokyo is probably the only exception

>kremlinshills proves that Russia is not the third world with the colonial economy

First of all this map is shit.

Also why would anybody want to specially create more of those giant monstrosities? WTF

>Switzerland
>Megalopolis
Pick one and go back to your swamp.

>Moscow
>Europe
>Istanbul
>Not Europe
Something is wrong here.
Tip: neither of them is Europe.

Finland doesn't even have proper cities. Even Helsinki is nothing but a large village.

Moscow can be considered European only by its geographical position. Culturally and historically it's a 100% asian city populated by asian people.

Germany first came up with the idea of indiscriminate bombing against Poland. If you spent some more time reading and less time cleaning toilets like all the eastern euros do you might know that.

:^)

It's not Asian. But it's not European either. Barbaric shithole with a lot of money.

Northern Italy is one giant megacity really, we are so fucking packed it's disgusting

Megacities are disgusting

actually not, primary targets were of military nature, secondary targets were civilian (hospitals, waterworks etc.)
which could be seen as a hastening of inevitable capitulation of Poland.. on the contrary great amount of civilian areas
were bombed by the Allies long after Germany was in shambles.

You would be surprised to see the disparity in damage done to Warsaw by their allies compared to the damage done by their enemies.
overwhelming majority of bombings in mainland Europe were done by the allies.

this has been studied a lot

>The mathematics of cities was launched in 1949 when George Zipf, a linguist working at Harvard, reported a striking regularity in the size distribution of cities. He noticed that if you tabulate the biggest cities in a given country and rank them according to their populations, the largest city is always about twice as big as the second largest, and three times as big as the third largest, and so on. In other words, the population of a city is, to a good approximation, inversely proportional to its rank. Why this should be true, no one knows.

>Even more amazingly, Zipf’s law has apparently held for at least 100 years. Given the different social conditions from country to country, the different patterns of migration a century ago and many other variables that you’d think would make a difference, the generality of Zipf’s law is astonishing.

how many european countries are there of over 10 million people?
know consider how long those countries have existed

the only country missing one is spain, probably because it was more pastoral by being so dry

How is Moscow an Asian city? Moscow is 900km from Helsinki but 5,800km from Beijing.

Even Vladivostok doesn't feel like an "Asian" city, even though it's in eastern Asia.

>primary and secondary targets
Jesus, everyone's primary target was initially of military nature. For both the Allies and Axis. It can't be disputed that bombing of civilians in WW2 was first done by Germany, however you try to spin it. Now once you start this process, you lose all rights to complain if it is done to you, just more effectively

>London
>mega

Madrid metro pop is like 7 million, the 4th biggest of Europe.

Looks like a cheap Chinese version of Europe, lol. And this is one of the best streets in the city.

To be fair, Tokyo's total population is half of England's. It's the largest city in the entire world.

>Germany did it first
>so we are fully justified to bomb the civilians of our allies in war in much larger scale ;^)

This is why you should never trust Anglos, I curse the day when Frenchies decided to not genocide you when they had the chance.

If you punch someone in the face, you can't complain that you've been punched in the face multiple times. It's not the allies fault they had a larger capacity to inflict the same kind if indiscriminate damage. If anything, they were pretty light handed about it. Indiscriminate bombing against London started in 1940, german cities weren't major targest until late 41.

>lets bomb Czechoslovakia and Poland to shit
>that will surely show those blasted Germans

Every immigrant shitskin that moves to Britain makes me just a tad happier.

Megacities are a very good breeding ground for crimes and generally bad shit.
100k is the upper limit desu.

GTA game when

>germans are all over europe
>lets just bomb part of europe, i'm sure that'll kill them all

It was your fault you didn't fight harder Tbh.

But i like how we've changed from bombing of german cities to that of german controlled cities, as if that makes any difference at all. I'd have happily killed 100 eastern euros if it meant 1 german died.

>Megacities are a very good breeding ground for crimes and generally bad shit.
Yet Tokyo is safe and relatively clean. And once again, it's the biggest city in the world.

They're fine as long as you keep third world migrants out, like Japan is doing. Not only is even Tokyo overwhelmingly homogenous, but the biggest minorities you'll see there are Koreans, Chinese (both of whom aren't visible minorities), Americans (generally a good thing) and Brazillians (a very mixed bag, but in such miniscule numbers it barely makes a difference). Unlike leaders in Europe they don't insist on more Islam.

independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/sadiq-khan-london-mayor-terrorism-attacks-part-and-parcel-major-cities-new-york-bombing-a7322846.html
In London Sadiq Khan (who the fuck else?) said that terrorism is just something you have to accept when living in a major city. Now scroll back to the picture comparing London and Tokyo. Now realize Tokyo hasn't had a single Islamic terrorist attack ever.

It's not purely the size that invites crime. Crime will be higher than in a village simply due to scale, but that's it.

>100k is the upper limit desu.

that's barely a city