Largest Cities in North America By Population

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
tomorton said:
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.
More...


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


tomorton said:
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.
More...


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 ...
angry-smiley-008.gif
 
Last edited:
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!
 
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.
 
tomorton said:
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!
More...

It isn't. London has been calling them all in for decades. :-)


Sorry, I cannot help myself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top