Talk:List of urban areas by population/Archive 1

San Francisco/San Jose is not the correct definition of the urban area
The Oakland MSA is clearly part of the same urban area - especially if Hartford is New York. Total SF/SJ/OAK population is ~7.5 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.95.202.218 (talk) 19:10, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
 * Oakland is part of the area as listed. The population you are referring to is the combined statistical area which includes areas outside the urban core. --Polaron | Talk 19:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolute Nonsense
This is one of the most misleading pages on Wikipedia. I don't care that it all comes from one source. It's total madness. In some US cases, multiple CSAs are combined (New York/Philly/Hartford - that's completely insane by any standard! ESPECIALLY if an area like Johannesburg and Pretoria are regarded as seperate). In other US cases, less than the CSA is used (SF Bay Area). And yet, the Randstadt is completely missing. How do I nominate this page to be deleted/removed/modified? It's from one source, and that source is dramatically out of line with any other source on this topic. The defender of this page keeps insiting "but it's all from Geopolis." Yeah, so. It doesn't correspond to anything like any proper notion of "urban area" - it doesn't even correspond to the much more broadly defined idea of "metro area" or even, for God's sake, even larger "regional" conceptions. Why are LA and San Diego distinct? There is MUCH more CONTINUOUS development linking those cities than Philly-NY-Hartford. It's obscene. So, how do we tag/nominate this page for inspection by others? 70.130.223.55 18:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)InSTL
 * So the application of a uniform 200 m gap criterion results in a listing that seems unusual. If you know of another global ranking of urban areas using a single criterion from a reliable source, you are most welcome to use it. Note that this listing does not care what the commuter flows or labor markets are and so have no direct relationship to metro areas. These definitions are based solely on the interconnectedness of man-made structures and nothing more. --Polaron | Talk 22:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the "200m" gap criterion does NOT meet the common definition or academic conceptions of what an "Urban Area" is. An "Urban Area" is a particular kind of built environment. It's a built environment of a particular population density - not structural density (especially one as structurally sparse as 200m! maximum distance). The "interconnectedness of man-made structures" is NOT what most demographers or geographers consider an "urban" area. Indeed, have a look at the Wikipedia page on "Urban Areas." The standard applied by your French source does not seem consistent with what is defined as an "Urban Area," even on Wikipedia - let alone the common understanding in demographic/geographic textbooks. Do you speak/read French? I'm quite sure that you misunderstand what is meant by the table you're citing. Have a look at the "Urban Areas in the United States" page, and/or the US criterion for "Urban Areas." This is a much, much more common and well accepted idea of what is an "urban" - versus suburban, periurban, rural, etc - area. Also, compare to the listings of "Urban Areas" at City Mayors and/or citypopulation.de, both much better sites, with numbers that more closely resemble the academic notion of "Urban" area. 128.252.66.63 19:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)InSTL
 * That may be so but you should still find a source that tabulates such areas worldwide using a uniform definition. Then you can simply replace this list with that. --Polaron | Talk 23:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Inherent problem
The inherent problem with these kinds of lists are:


 * 1) people try to change the numbers
 * 2) estimates by one source for some specific places are excellent, while others are poor
 * 3) we trade one set of good/bad sources for another, never getting anywhere.
 * 4) their is some minor leeway interpretation of estimates.

However, estimates are SO BAD, they are beyond that minor interpretation differences. What we need is a "locked" collection of the "best" sources available, not "officially defined" or "defined by some organization with imperfect data". I have been looking at population numbers for 20 years now, I could make a very accurate, rigorous, and transparent, but that would take me a long time, I would have to make tables for each and every metropolitan area with each and every city/town/locality listed with date and source, but and someone would just revert my hard work. I would need sponsorship in terms of support from wikipedia as it would be a HUGE project. Doseiai2 03:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not in the business of doing original research. If you can get your work published in a peer-reviewed academic journal or something like an urban studies book, we can cite that. If you are aware of a better source using a single definition, please share it here. --Polaron | Talk 03:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. And its a waste of my precious time, so I'm not doing it. Until you get an expert to scrutinize every detail, this data will be false and fiercely contested. Insisting on using single sources is the same result, and the average resident in any of these cities will know most of the data is crap. Not all numbers are contested, Tokyo's are pretty much synchronized and accepted now. Doseiai2 03:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

new harmonized source
demographia.com publishes a list of urban areas for the entire world. The list may be better in some senses as it doesn't combine areas if they belong to different labor markets. In this sense, urban areas in the demographia list are always smaller than metropolitan areas. If there are no complaints, I will switch over to this source in the next day or so. --Polaron | Talk 01:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Johannesburg-Pretoria (Tshwane)
If you're gonna lump New York and Philadelphia together, then you should technically do the same for Johannesburg and Pretoria. When travelling along the N1 freeway between the two, there is now contiguous built-up area. At the Samrand interchange, businesses on the one side of the road fall in the Jhb municipality and on the other side in Pta. Estimated population by 2015: 15 million.
 * It is not the Wikipedia editors' decision how to define these. All figures are from a single source, using the same methodology for comparability. If you find an alternative source for an international urban area ranking, you could just use that to replace the entire list. --Polaron | Talk 12:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it is the Wikipedia editors' decision to make use of a bad list.

1. What is this single source? 2. Who compiled it? 3. When was it compiled? 4. What methodology was used in the compilation?


 * Your questions can all be answered by looking up the Geopolis research project web page. They have detailed methodologies about delineation there. In any case, this is all moot now since the source was changed. --Polaron | Talk 16:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because you found a single list does that make it a good list? I've just come back from San Francisco. Somebody there (a lucid, sane, well-spoken, probably fairly educated American) asked me where I was from. I said Johannesburg. He said, "Is that a country?" I rest my case... The same thing happened in New York (supposedly the centre of the universe). And thanks, I have found two lists that are infinitely superior to the Wikipedia one: they're called citypopulation.de. and Rand McNally. Kudos also to Wendell Cox and Demographia for getting it 75% right: they included the East Rand but not the West Rand. Well, it's a start. We'll have to re-educate the world one person at a time... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.207.33.197 (talk) 15:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The Demographia definition does include the contiguous urbanized portions of West Rand. "Johannesburg-East Rand" is only the name its list uses. --Polaron | Talk 16:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you to Polaron for bravely bearing the brunt of the Wikipedia community's hue and outcry about the false information presented in the previous list. The information is not supposed to be original but it should at least be good. One of my university professors agrees that Wikipedia is often the best, most current info available. I agree. It's certainly a hell of a lot better than that crap they call Encarta, with its 30-year-old information. What a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.207.33.197 (talk) 17:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Nagoya?
At #24, we have Nagoya, Japan - which is evidently using the larger Chukyo region metro. population to put it up that high. By the metropolitan measure, Chicago and London would be much larger than Nagoya anyway. Does Nagoya have a measurement of its Urban area? If so, this should be provided and it should be moved accordingly to that rank. Otherwise, I suggest removing Nagoya? Rob Shepard (talk) 02:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It depends on the definition.


 * The major metropolitan area (MMA) is defined as the area where more than 1.5% of its resident population aged 15 and above daily commutes to the core city. So the Keihinyo (Tokyo-Yokohama-Chiba) MMA contains 34,493,366 persons in 13,499 km2, Keihanshin (Kyoto-Osaka-Kobe) MMA contains 18,643,915 persons in 11,169 km2, Chukyo (Nagoya) MMA contains 8,738,842 persons in 6,380 km2, and Kitakyushu-Fukuoka MMA contains 5,418,537 persons in 4,943 km2 according to the 2000 census (the revised data of MMAs have not yet been released for the 2005 census). On the other hand, Demographia defines an urban area with a minimum urban density definition of 400 persons per km2.  So the Tokyo-Yokohama area contains 34,250,000 persons in 7,835 km2, the Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto area contains 17,250,000 persons in 3,497 km2, the Nagoya area contains 9,175,000 persons in 4,662 km2, and the Kitakyushu-Fukuoka area is split into the Fukuoka area (2,225,000 persons in 583 km2) and the Kitakyushu area (1,800,000 persons in 1,166 km2) using the 2005 census.  Indeed the 1.5% criteria usually makes the MMAs too vast, especially for Kitakyushu-Fukuoka area.  However for Nagoya case, Toyohashi (372,479 persons), Suzuka (193,114), and surrounding cities and towns are further added to the Chukyo MMA to meet the criteria, while many hillside municipalities below 400 persons/km2 are deleted, which make the Nagoya area defined by Demographia more populous but narrower compared to the official Chukyo MMA.


 * I myself think that the appropriate population of Nagoya urban area is 7 million and the addition of Toyohashi to Nagoya urban area is not appropriate. The 400 person/km2 criteria makes urbans rather vast and municipalities (cities, towns, and villages) are apparently used as the units of calculation by Demographia, because the statistical units of census below municipalities level are not released in Japan.  DIDs (densely-inhabited-districts) are officialy recognized and released urban areas below municipalities level in Japan, though these statistical districts are inhabited areas with more than 4,000 persons per km2.  The Nagoya urban area defined by the UN World Urbanization Prospects consists of the DIDs of cities of Nagoya, Seto, Kasugai, Tokoname, Komaki, Tokai, Chita, Owariasahi, and Toyoake; towns of Nagakute, Nishibiwajima, Toyoyama, Shikatsu, Nishihawa, Kiyosu, Shinkawa, Shippo, Jimokuji, Oharu, and Kanie, where the DIDs are perfectly connected at the year of 1990 (3,125,409 persons in these total DIDs based on the 2000 census).  However this criteria does not allow to add such areas as Toyota (412,141), Gifu (399,931), Ichinomiya (371,687), and Okazaki (354,704) to Nagoya, though the DIDs of these cities are connected by inhabited areas with the density less than 4,000 persons/km2, but well over 400 persons/km2.Aurichalcum (talk) 06:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Sydney?
Just wondering why Sydney, Australia isn't included in this list? With a population of 4.28 million according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, as a result of the last Census in Australia, which took place 1 1/2 years ago. W33nie (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sydney is ranked as 76th wih the population of 3,720,000 persons per 1,687 km2 according to Demographia. Probably many suburbs were cut off to meet criteria.Aurichalcum (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added 30 other urbans to show Sydney and Melbourne data.Aurichalcum (talk) 09:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, don't get the metropolitan and urban areas mixed up. The 4 mil. figure is the metropolitan area, and includes areas not physically part of Sydney's urban area like Gosford. - Aucitypops (talk) 11:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for putting Phoenix in Australia!Aurichalcum

(talk) 12:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Dallas/Forth Metroplex is missing
Dallas/Fort Worth is missing Dallas/Fort Worth

Clearly this is severaly dated information, and in the case of fast growing metro areas like Dallas, it becomes even more removed from current fact, based on census figures. Current US census data put the Dallas/Forth area as the fast growing large metro area in the entire US, as well as one with the most absolute growth. Dallas now ranks forth of all metros, and comes in at just under 6.1 million, clearing leapfrogging some of the slower growing cities or those who may have lost poluations. At some point, we really should move toward about a fresh source (an there are plenty on this subject) which would better reflct currect facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Champsdfw (talk • contribs) 05:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

See the latest rankings based on most current census data that woudl support the change:


 * Urban area of Dallas–Fort Worth is defined as the combined census urban areas of Dallas–Forth Worth–Arlington (4,145,659 persons in 3,644.22 km² in 2000) and Denton–Lewisville (299,823 persons per 314.88 km² in 2000) by Demographia: 4,446,000 persons per 3,959 km² in 2000. The population growth of Dallas–Fort Worth is 2.40% and the projected population in 2007 is 5,250,000 (is already ranked the 51st in the Table).  Indeed the urban area of Dallas–Fort Worth is nearly surpassing Miami, San Francisco–San Jose (Combined urban area of San Francisco–Oakland, San Jose, and Concord), and Philadelphia, and is expected to be the 4th most populous urban area in the near future (7,140,000 in 2020).


 * Anyway these figures are calculated using urban area data of the latest census in 2000, not standard metropolitan statistical area data (SMSAs are composed of counties). Low-density aras are excluded from urban areas.  See List of United States urban areas.

Aurichalcum (talk) 07:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Aurichalcum (talk) 09:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Birmingham
Where Birmingham and Liverpool/Manchester?


 * Birmingham is ranked the 145th largest (2,280,000 per 600 km²), while Manchester 148th (2,240,000 per 558 km²). Coventry (336,000 per 76 km²), Liverpool (816,000 per 186 km²), and Birkenhead (320,000 per 89 km²) are treated as independent urban areas according to Demographia.Aurichalcum (talk) 08:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added all the other data for urbans over 2,000,000 to show Birmingham and Manchester, or other urbans mentioned here. But the size of the Table may become a bit vast.Aurichalcum (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Montreal
Theat population is not right at all... It's in the 1 million mark, not the 3 million mark... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.15.120 (talk) 03:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The census population of Ville Montréal is 1,620,693 in 2006, while the population of the officially defined urbanized or the census metropolitan area of Montréal is 3,316,615 or 3,635,571, respectively. The urban area includes Laval (368,709), Longueuil (229,330), and adjacent cities and towns.Aurichalcum (talk) 05:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

São Paulo
Based on the wikipedia article about the metropolitan area of São Paulo, the population should be 20,677,506 people, not 18,130,000 as shown in this article, which would put it in second on the list, I think that the population reajusted to more accurate numbers  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franacc (talk • contribs) 20:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, the official estimated population of Região Metropolitana de São Paulo is 19,677,506 in mid-2006, not 20,677,506. I've found another figure in Wikipedia: 22,677,506; 3 million is added to the official estimate.


 * Anyway, Demographia's defenition of urban areas in Brazil is not based on the official recognitions (both metropolitan and urban) but upon Demographia's own map or satellite photograph analysis. According to Demographia, urban area of São Paulo has 17,800,000 inhabitants per 2,784 km² in 2005 or 18,130,000 inhabitants in 2007 using 2005 census profiles.  On the other hand, the official metropolitan area of Sao Paul is 8,051 km², which makes the area other than the urban area defined by Demographia 5,267 km², where the popluation density is less than 400/km²Aurichalcum (talk) 06:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The data regarding Campinas (Brazil) is out-of-date and inaccurate
According to the most up-to-date research, conducted in 2007 by the IBGE (Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics), the metropolitan region of Campinas (RMC), which is compound by 19 cities, has a total of 2,633,523 inhabitants, instead of 2,040,000 as is being shown in this page. If one considers all the 49 cities in the Campinas meso-region, the population is over 3.2 million people.

The data can be found in the IBGE official publication named Contagem da População 2007, which translated to English means "Population count 2007". IBGE is a very serious institute of great renown in Brazil. Below, there is the data from this document showing the population of each one of the 19 cities that are part of the RMC:

In this way, I strongly suggest that this page be modified to include the most accurate information about the RMC. --Rbacorrea (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That appears to be the official metropolitan area rather than the urban area, which in most cases is smaller than the metro area. --Polaron | Talk 18:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * According to the Campinas article hosted by Wikipedia, considering the city of Campinas alone, over 98% of the population are in urban areas, which is virtually everyone. But, unfortunately, I don't have the data for the whole metropolitan area. Also, although I consider your argument plausible, I don't believe that almost 600,000 people live in the countryside in the RMC. And, I base my beliefs in the fact that the region is highly urbanized. So, it is improbable that 23% of the population there is out of the cities. Anyway, this demands a little more research from me. As soon as I find something, I will let you know.

--67.170.13.12 (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Demographia has its own definition of urban areas. In case of Campinas, the official metropolitan region has the area of 3,647 km², while the urban area defined by Demographia has only the area of 492 km².  This means that the surrounding area has the population density of less than 200/km² (ca. 600,000/3,155km²).Aurichalcum (talk) 06:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Casablanca
Casablanca has population of 3 728 824. This is what it says in Casablanca's official website. and in Wikipedia too. and many other sources. http://www.casablanca.ma/index/portal/media-type/html/user/anon/page/citoyen.psml?noteid=2440 Koumed (talk) 16:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You are referring to the Grand Casablanca administrative region, which more closely approximates the metropolitan area rather than the urban area. --Polaron | Talk 16:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Randstad missing
Randstad


 * Good point; does the Randstad satisfy the requirements to be on this list? kipton 21:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * By taking 400/km2 as lower limit, shouldn't it be more like Rhein-Ruhr / Randstad / Brussels / Antwerp / Lille / Düsseldorf / Cologne-Bonn urban area, with a population of over 40 million? The entire states of NRW, NL and Flanders have densities over 400/km2 by themselves... Clint.hotvedt (talk) 19:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The population density of Fladers is indeed over 400 persons per square kilometeres. But the density of areas excluding Antwerp, Ghent, Bruges, and Leuven (and Brussels) are under 400 persons per square kilometers.  Likewise for NRW and NL cases.  So demographia treats the follwing areas as separate: Essen-Dusseldorf (7,360,000 in 2,642 km2), Rotterdam-Hague (2,090,000 in 842 km2), Cologne-Bonn (2,020,000 in 932 km2), Brussels (1,625,000 in 751 km2), Amsterdam (1,100,000 in 414 km2), Lille (in France-Belgum, 1,050,000 in 474 km2), Antwerp (915,000 in 660 km2),  Aachen (in Germay-Netherlands, 585,000 in 401 km2), Haarlem (450,000 in 142 km2), Utrecht (400,000 in 109 km2), and Ghent (350,000 in 194 km2).


 * I'm living on the outskirts of Randstad and this seems utter nonsense to me. There is literally no gap between the urban areas of The Hague and Amsterdam, the suburbs of the one start where those of the other stop. Idem for Amsterdam-Utrecht. However, on course-grained maps there might appear to be a gap in population density due to the unusual shape of the agglomeration (an irregular donut), and the presence of a lot of water, with population densities calculated incorrectly. If you check the Dutch Bosatlas, which correctly calculates the density on dry land, subtracting all water areas from the total area, you can easily see the main cities are all connected by areas with population density over 600, though a few minor cities are indeed seperated by small nature parks, which might push down the total population number down to ~6 million instead of 7.1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.204.135.202 (talk) 14:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Randstad areas are connected by municipalities over 600/km², but for districts levels (such as "dorp" or "buurtschap") there seem several places with poplation densities under 100/km² that separate urban areas of Leiden and Haarlem, or Leiden and the Hague (I cannot read Dutch, so I must admit that I have not checked all the population data for such border districts). According to Demographia, the urban areas in the Netherlands are determined based upon map or satellite photograph analysis, with population data or growth rates from the 2005 census.  Anyway, I don't know exactly how Demographia has determined urbanized areas in the Netherlands.  Maybe it is a good idea to send an e-mail to Demographia to suggest possible errors in estimates.Aurichalcum (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Even Geopolis which defines urban areas by 200 meters gap of buildings does not treat Randstad as a single urban area (3,340,000 for Rotterdam-Hague, 1,193,000 for Amsterdam), while Essen and Cologne (10,069,000) or Brussels and Antwerp (4,477,000) are treated as sigle urbans, respectively. Aurichalcum (talk) 11:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Randstad is not treated as a single urban area (or agglomeration) by several sources that list all major urban areas in the world, except for World Gazetteer (but as a metropolitan area):

Population estimates by Moriconi-Ebrard's Géopolis (1994 and 2007) are for 1990 and 2005, respectively.Aurichalcum (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)Aurichalcum (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

For urban areas in Belgium:

Population estimates by Moriconi-Ebrard's Géopolis (1994 and 2007) are for 1990 and 2005, respectively.Aurichalcum (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ruhr area and Aachen–Vaals:

Population estimates by Moriconi-Ebrard's Géopolis (1994 and 2007) are for 1990 and 2005, respectively. Aurichalcum (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)Aurichalcum (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Conurbation
I was wandering if a Conurbation is the same as a metropolitan area because in Scotland it is purely urban landscape from coast to coast and it is referred to as a conurbation but it isn't in the list but numbers 4 million people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.134.72 (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * According to who? Certainly not according to the ONS, which is the most authoritative source regarding urban areas in the UK. While there may be a chain of urban areas in Scotland, it is likely there are gaps of over 200 m and/or low density areas between these urban centers so these are not considered a single urban area. --Polaron | Talk 20:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Karachi
Wikipedia's sourse for the population of Karachi is World Gazetteer, who has calculated the projected population (12,461,423) on Jan 1, 2008 using the latest census population (9,339,023) held on March 2, 1998 for the whole City District of Karachi (3,527 km2). Demographia has also calculated the projected population using the same census data, but has admitted only the limited area of 881 km2 as an urban area of Karachi (8,700,000 out of 12,210,000 total in 2005) excluding outer areas within the City District. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aurichalcum (talk • contribs) 08:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Forgot to signAurichalcum (talk) 08:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, the urban population of Karachi estimated by Demographia is categorized with Lahore, Shenzhen and Dongguan as the least reliable ones by Demographia itself.Aurichalcum (talk) 09:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a possibility that Demographia have calcultated the population of Karachi from the wrong basic data. The city as defined at the 1998 population census (pop. 9,339,023) isn't matching the administrative boundary of the city district (as defined in 2001, with adjusted 1998 census population of 9,856,318, area 3,527 sq.km). I wouldn't be surprised if Demographia haven't observed this difference, and that their 881 sq.km definition in reality isn't so much different than the pre-2001 boundaries. However, I haven't found any statistics yet for the pre-2001 area to compare with. --Pjred (talk) 14:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The population figure of 9,339,023 is the one actually used by World Gazetteer. The basic sources that Demographia has used are not perfectly shown. According to the 2006 edition of Demographia (which is no loner on the web), population of the urban area of Karachi was estimated at 9,800,000 per 518 km2 in 1998 and the projected population at 12,210,000 (15th most populous urban in the world) in 2005. The source was noted as Demographia population estimate from national census authority agglomeration data. Then according to the 2007 edition of Demographia (which is no loner on the web), the estimated population of the urban area of Karachi was downsized at 8,700,000 per 751 km2 in 2005 and the projected population at 9,260,000 (23rd) in 2007. The source was noted as Estimate based upon projected growth rate from last census.  A further note for Karachi was issued since then (Karachi: The population is lower than other estimates (such as the United Nations), metropolitan area population not within the continuously developed urban area.). According to the 2008 edition of Demographia, the urban area was slightly corrected (8,700,000 per 881 km2 in 2005; projected population in 2008: 9,380,000 (23rd)).Aurichalcum (talk) 16:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's very hard to evaluate calculations and definitions from Demographia, World Gazetteer and similar places. However, when it comes to Demographias calculation for the urban area of Karachi, I think they got the area about right, but they have probably underestimated the population within the given area. The reason for this could be what I wrote in my previous contribution, that they didn't observe the difference between the 1998 and current definitions of the city. This is important to get right, as I assume that they calculate the population based on population densities of the administrative units that's involved.
 * If we go back to the definition and population at the 1998 population census, there's some clues that the Demographia figure isn't correct. The city (I think it was classified as a Metropolitan Corporation back then) included three completely urban districts (Karachi Central, Karachi East and Karachi South), and parts of two other (Karachi West and Malir). The three urban districts had a population of 6,768,989, and an area of 330 sq.km. Then we have 2,570,034 inhabitants left in the two other districts. If we assume that the population density is the same as the three urban districts, it would cover an additional 125 sq.km. If we instead assume (as an experimental calculation) that the population density was as low as 5,000 inh./sq.km (which in comparision with the urban districts is too low, I think), it would give approx. 514 sq.km. This would give a total area of, let's say, between 450 and 850 sq.km, rounded figures. This match the area figure(s) given by Demographia quite well, but not the population. I think it's fair to doubt Demographia's population figure for Karachi. --Pjred (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)