The table provides population figures for cities with legally defined boundaries, with recognised urban status and with its own local government. The figures do not take into account suburban settlements or other heavily populated areas outside city boundaries.

Was a bit surprised to learn that LOS is bigger than London as I always thought London was too massive and crowded a city. We're now fast catching up with the other major cities, thanks to the recent mass migration of farangs into Bangkok.

I don't think the farang residents even register a blip in the great scheme of things...

The table provides population figures for cities with legally defined boundaries, with recognised urban status and with its own local government. The figures do not take into account suburban settlements or other heavily populated areas outside city boundaries.

Was a bit surprised to learn that LOS is bigger than London as I always thought London was too massive and crowded a city. We're now fast catching up with the other major cities, thanks to the recent mass migration of farangs into Bangkok.

I think the figure quoted for London is only for inner London. There is way more people live in London than that. They probably dont include Greater London. IMO.

Londons Population ...and that is the whole of the Big Smoke.

Dont know if it includes for the 3 Thai ladies I spoke to yesterday on Islington Upper Street

The 2001 estimate for London has been raised to 7.308 million.

The estimate for 2002 is 7.355 million.

On 26 September ONS released revised mid-year estimates for 2001 together with estimates for mid-2002.

The impact of the revisions was to increase the number of young males, mostly between the ages of 25 and 34, by about 193 thousand in England and Wales. 120 thousand of this adjustment was in London.

The 2001 estimate for London has been raised to 7.308 million.

The estimate for 2002 is 7.355 million.

This is the lowest annual rise in London’s population since 1997-98.

London is now assumed to have grown by 479 thousand between 1991 and 2001.

The growth in London’s population in 2001-02 is almost entirely due to natural change – 104 thousand births and 57 thousand deaths.

Official estimates for net migration are not yet available but in total they will be very close to zero.

It is already known that London lost over 98 thousand net migrants to the rest of the UK, therefore the net inflow from overseas will be of a similar size.

The loss to the rest of the UK is 30 thousand more than in 1999-2000.

Average annual net migration for 1997-2002 is now estimated as 26 thousand a year.

This compares to the figure of 9 thousand a year – based on 1996-2001 as used in the Scenario 7.9 projections presented to the London Plan Examination in Public.

The initial implications of the new estimates is that London’s population may rise by 964 thousand persons to 8.272 million in 2016, with a rise in households of 405 thousand.

These projections will be fully assessed when additional migration and vital statistics data become available from ONS .

How odd! I was sniffing round a few Thai birds in Upper St yesterday as well.........

What did they look like?

What did they look like?

Black Hair, Almond Shaped eyes and a smile to melt the hardest heart.............

I've got the hots for a waitress in a Thai restaurant (I won't say which one) who is doing her PHd at SOAS and was breifly my Thai conversation buddie when I was there so I 'dropped' in to say hello and have a drink and a sniff!

Not meaning to turn this into a 'Thai Girl in North London Alert' thread theres also an absolute stonker in the Bangkok Restaurant on the High Road at Bruce Grove.

Back on topic, I have a National Geographic from 1969 which has an ariel photo taken of Bangkok over Wat Arun looking North East.

It looks a different city totally. The only familar landmarks are the Grand Palace, Wat Pho, and Wat Saket.

From low Sukhumvit eastwards (as far as I can tell) its all fields. The Bangkok of the 1960s would have been swallowed up in London, now they are pretty much the same size.

I wonder what is the fastest growing city in the world? When I first went to Ayutthya by coach there used to be clear countryside between BKK and Ayutthya. Now there is little sense of having left the city at all.

What abou this one ? Manchester smaller than Bradford ???

Not meaning to turn this into a 'Thai Girl in North London Alert' thread theres also an absolute stonker in the Bangkok Restaurant on the High Road at Bruce Grove.

Yes I think I know the one (the Ran-ahan that is not the stonker)

Its just up the allyway /side street off Tottenham High st opposite Bruce Grove Railway Station.

In the 4 years that K. W. been over ere I have never managed to get her into a Thai rest.

She refuses to believe that anyone can cook the way she does/better and will not be Ripped Off in any UK excuses for Thai Eating houses.

Why pay when its free at home...TIL..

Thats the one! And they sell real Chang as well sometimes!

Population within city limits is interesting if you're earning a Ph.D. in municipal govt. Otherwise, it's the metro area/connurbation that means the most. Here in Texas I just glanced at a 2000 'World Almanac' and see that Bangkok's not listed in the top 15 connurbations in the world. Neither is any city in Europe or the UK.

Who really cares? Usually half a million, or less, is all you need to get everything you want, unless you absolutely have to find an Ethopian eunuich who speaks fluent Hebrew, at 3:00 AM.

Amazing that at the airport for the 12th largest city in the world they haven't figured out a more efficient way to arrange for departing taxis than a SINGLE LINE, ONE CAB/CUSTOMER AT A TIME!!!!

Although BKK is ranked 12th in terms of population, it's actually the 2nd largest city in the world in terms of area...!

Although BKK is ranked 12th in terms of population, it's actually the 2nd largest city in the world in terms of area...!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Go to Nong Chok, or Klong Samwa sometime and you'll understand...

They're both officially part of Bangkok (unlike Don Muang or Samut Prakan), and they're mostly fields (although lots of new Moo Baans going up).

Similarly, their largest urban area populations just have the city values for Bangkok, so no Samut Prakan, or Muang Thong Thani included to move it up the list. (ditto for London, although the 7m figure probably covers greater London).

As for Bangkok in the 60s, you have to remember Thailand's population in 1945 was half of the UKs, and most people worked on the land. Now Thailand's population is a little bigger than the UKs, and lots of people keep moving to the cities because everything pays better than farming. (Unless you have the Common Agricultural Policy which basically costs EU taxpayers every 2 months what NASA estimates it will cost to stick a man on Mars).

I did see London win one category. The most expensive city to live in....

Edited March 26, 200521 yr by bkk_mike

I don't know about that chart. New York 8,008,000 people??? Shit I personally know over 8,009,000.

And those are just the ones I don't like.

Unless you have the Common Agricultural Policy which basically costs EU taxpayers every 2 months what NASA estimates it will cost to stick a man on Mars)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The French just absobloodylutely love it !

Wonder if these numbers include the large number of Bangkok residents who are still registered as residing in outer provinces? At least one million, I've read somewhere.

That page is whacked. On the list of largest cities, it shows Toronto, Canada at # 65 with 2.5 million. Yet, when you click on "Largest Canadian Cities", it shows Toronto as having 4.26 million.

On World's Largest Urban Areas, it shows Bangkok as the 23rd largest city for "City Population", and 28th for "Urban Population". Bombay comes in as the largest "City" and Tokyo as the largest "Urban" populations.

This site shows somewhat different numbers: Principal Agglomerations of the World

1 Tokyo Japan 34,000,000

2 Mexico City Mexico 22,350,000

3 Seoul South Korea 22,050,000

4 New York USA 21,800,000

32 Bangkok Thailand 7,800,000

I'm sure there are a lot more sites with wildly different stats.

With so many different stats, how do you tell which is the most accurate ?

That page is whacked. On the list of largest cities, it shows Toronto, Canada at # 65 with 2.5 million. Yet, when you click on "Largest Canadian Cities", it shows Toronto as having 4.26 million.

On World's Largest Urban Areas, it shows Bangkok as the 23rd largest city for "City Population", and 28th for "Urban Population". Bombay comes in as the largest "City" and Tokyo as the largest "Urban" populations.

This site shows somewhat different numbers: Principal Agglomerations of the World

1  Tokyo Japan          34,000,000

2  Mexico City Mexico 22,350,000

3  Seoul South Korea  22,050,000

4  New York USA        21,800,000

32 Bangkok Thailand      7,800,000

I'm sure there are a lot more sites with wildly different stats.

With so many different stats, how do you tell which is the most accurate ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What makes it really difficult is that in many countries (like Japan and Thailand), the "cities" aren't really cities at all, they are states or provinces.

Tokyo Prefecture (sp?), for example, is probably about as big as Rhode Island and some areas of Tokyo are all farmland and forest (jing jing!). Bangkok is also a province and covers quite a large area (though you'd never know that from those stupid tourist maps that only cover the downtown area out to Victory Monument.)

New York City, on the other hand, is actually very, very tiny in comparison. The eight or nine million people who live in New York City, proper, are all jammed onto a few tiny islands (and the butt-end of Long Island).

New York Metro, however, is more on par with Tokyo Prefecture, since it includes the surrounding Tri-State area from New Jersey to Connecticut. New York City outgrew it's home state a long time ago, and now it spans an area that includes three states, dozens of smaller cities, and hundreds of burbs, villages and townships. Sure all of these places have their own local governments and jurisdictions, but nobody in those places is going to tell you that they are from "White Plains". They are just going to say, "I'm from New York".

Just because the city government hasn't legally annexed all those outlying areas doesn't mean that the "entity" of New York City didn't swallow up all those towns a long time ago.

Boston is another good example. I think barely 500,000 to 600,000 people actually live in Boston itself (heck, even Milwaukee is bigger), but the Boston Metro area has about 2 to 3 million people (compared to Milwaukee Metro's 1 million). So by one measure, Milwaukee is bigger, and by another measure, Boston is bigger.

Sticklers for details will say that only populations within "municipal city limits" count, but that measure favors the cities that are also provinces or states, like Tokyo, since the city and the state are one and the same. But we all know that Metro populations are a truer measure of a city's size since that measure ignores arbitrary municipal boundaries and instead looks at the whole urban area.

So the numbers on that website are probably right, but they are also probably only looking at the city-proper population, and not the Metro area outside the municipal city limits. By that measure, the province-city of Bangkok is much closer in size to the more narrowly-defined City of New York. But if you took a map of Bangkok, and superimposed it over a map of New York, and then counted up all the people in an equivilently-sized area, you'd see that there is no comparison. New York Metro is MUCH, MUCH more densely populated than Bangkok, by far.

Edited March 26, 200521 yr by Pudgimelon