Surprising in a country with around 65 - 70 million.

I don't know Thailand outside of BKK, Hua Hin, Pattaya and Jomtien, so am ignorant about the rest of the country...so would welcome your thoughts/knowledge.

It seems to me that, unlike in Auckland NZ, cheaper oftentimes well-built apartments are accessible for low-waged workers (without government subsidy), so could that be a contributing reason?

Why is there no policy by government or property developers to create infrastructure to encourage other "spoke" cities with Bangkok as the hub to relieve congestion? Does it have something to do with regional administration, geography, whatever?

Similar to the UK then.

Because there isn't.

Because it's Thailand.

Because it's not New Zealand.

Because it's a largely agricultural country where most people are farmers and don't live in cities.

Because not everywhere wants to be a mirror image of where you come from.

Because it's getting slightly pissed off of strangers turning up and telling it how they think it ought to run itself.

I was not wanting Thailand to change...it was my ignorance about other countries with similar populations having the same; always thought UK had several 1plus million cities.

NZ is a primarily agricultural country also with just 4.4 mlln, with 1.4 living in Auckland, so lots of empty spaces like Thailand.

I obviously have been making false assumptions!

Why would any satisfied well-fed rural and farm person want to live in a city. He already lives in the more healthy place, with cheap living, and family around?

Cities are the destruction of rural and family culture. Thailand needs govt policies to help Thai to stay out of cities.

People go where the work is, there is a lot of work in Bangkok, elsewhere, not so much.

Does Chiang Mai not have 1 mill ?

Korat?

Chonburi City ?

Chiang Mai is over one million in the metropolitan area. "Chiang Mai province has a population of around 1,547,085 with 170,348 currently living in Chiang Mai's city area."

http://www.gochiangmai.com/facts.htm

High dudgeon from sustento. Come on, matey, Vic was just asking some questions, not putting forward any theories.

I don't think housing has anything to do with it, as slums attest. Maybe it's because family support systems are still relatively strong in rural areas, maybe industrialisation has been spread out and not centralised (check the Industrial Estate Authority of Thailand website), maybe it's because census polls don't record the very active transient populations of Thailand (Bkk is a good example - estimates of its population vary from 6 million to 15 million).

Maybe Vic lives north of the Bombay Hills and is out of touch with rural reality. :)

The degree of urbanization of a country's population correlates with the degree of economic development. A fully-developed country like France (with a population and area similar to Thailand's) has a higher urbanization rate (85.8%) compared to Thailand (34.1%). Thailand's urbanization rate is comparable to that of other countries in the region.

It's simple: government policies and the preferences of the elite. The government has never seriously encouraged the expansion of industry and associated employment opportunities in provincial cities, nor the provision of high-quality education and other such social necessities in those places. Almost everything is invested in Bangkok, all the best economic opportunities are in Bangkok, infrastructure investment is vastly more in Bangkok in proportion to any other place, anybody who's anybody lives in Bangkok, and has their children educated in Bangkok, etc, etc, etc.

Thailand is like a diseased octopus: it has a huge head, Bangkok, and all the rest is just appendages, because that's the way the elite have fixed it, in their deep wisdom.

Similar to the UK then.

No, it's not. Ridiculous comparison. Britain has many large regional centres with a full range of high-quality services, e.g. Manchester, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Newcastle, Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, etc etc. Thailand has only Chiang Mai as a provincial city of quality, and even that is no great shakes.

Because there isn't.

Because it's Thailand.

Because it's not New Zealand.

Because it's a largely agricultural country where most people are farmers and don't live in cities.

Because not everywhere wants to be a mirror image of where you come from.

Because it's getting slightly pissed off of strangers turning up and telling it how they think it ought to run itself.

So you think Thailand is OK with one monster metropolis that gobbles up almost everything of high economic, infrastructural or cultural worth? Or if you don't think that's OK, you think no foreigner should comment on it?

Geography is also a factor. In countries such as Japan the population is largely forced to live in a narrow coastal area because much of the interior is so inhospitable. Significant parts of New Zealand are similarly uninhabitable. Large parts of Australia are arid desert, again not comfortably colonised.

Thailand has a moderate climate across the country and few uninhabitable areas to force urbanisation.

Khon Kaen? Phuket? Someone already said Chiang Mai.

It's a valid question, and it's basically to do with centralisation.

It sounds as though you are saying that this situation is indicative of something lacking in gov't or infrastructure in which case there is nothing to debate.

You want thoughts about other areas of Thailand besides Bangkok . . .

Chiang Mai is nothing like Bangkok, which has at least thirty skyscrapers going up as we speak. CM has no skyscraper central business district, though there are high rise hotels. It's a huge urban sprawl. There's new construction going on everywhere. They just opened three ultra modern super malls. It has an amazing sports facility, waiting for something to happen. Chiang Mai University is huge, with a Medical school. Hard to tell where the city limits are, but the 170,000 population figure doesn't seem right, you feel the over 1 million person population when you're here. What's interesting about Chiang Mai - I've never lived in a big city, and never wanted to live in a big city, but I've lived here for three years and love it. I met a fellow writer yesterday and he compared Chiang Mai to the Paris of Asia for writers and artists. Lots of talent in this city.

because only 1 city has enough jobs and shopping malls to attract in thais from the countryside

Similar to the UK then.

No, it's not. Ridiculous comparison. Britain has many large regional centres with a full range of high-quality services, e.g. Manchester, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Newcastle, Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, etc etc. Thailand has only Chiang Mai as a provincial city of quality, and even that is no great shakes.

I would say the comparison is relevant.

Some countries have only one large city and the rest are small in comparison. For example UK and the Nordic countries. Other countries have many similarly sized cities, e.g. Germany.

Who knows what causes these different types of developments, possibly many factors working together for each outcome.

One drawback of "single-city" countries is that housing prices tend to get extreme in that single city, since "everbody" wants to go there...

Bangkok gets lion share of the investment.

WELL ! I'll ave you know,,, that back in the UuuKayyy!!!!......I think we know how the rest goes!!!

Chiang Mai is over one million in the metropolitan area. "Chiang Mai province has a population of around 1,547,085 with 170,348 currently living in Chiang Mai's city area."--Diplomatico

No Diplomatico Chiang mai does not have over a million in its Metropolitan area---Chiang Mai has over 1.7 million spread out in its entire province, a metropolitan area is something that is adjoined to the city.

& only 1 city in the Uk (other than London) has a population of over a million----Birmingham

--Metropolitan area--Of or constituting a large city or urbanized area, including adjacent suburbs and towns:---http://www.thefreedictionary.com/metropolitan

Lots of socio economic professors online today.

Sent from my iPhone using ThaiVisa app

infrastructure and industrie do not need and allow more cities to grow that big. there are like said mostly only farm area's. However plans are being made for motorways and traintracks to better connect to the backlands and allow industrie tomove away from Bangkok. Korat is a fast growing city and places in the direction of isaan are growing rapidly, only not close to a million by far yet. looking at deals being made by big companies i am pretty sure they will move away from Bangkok (and the traffic and floods) an within 10 years you will find more bigger cities here

Chiang Mai is over one million in the metropolitan area. "Chiang Mai province has a population of around 1,547,085 with 170,348 currently living in Chiang Mai's city area."--Diplomatico

No Diplomatico Chiang mai does not have over a million in its Metropolitan area---Chiang Mai has over 1.7 million spread out in its entire province, a metropolitan area is something that is adjoined to the city.

& only 1 city in the Uk (other than London) has a population of over a million----Birmingham

--Metropolitan area--Of or constituting a large city or urbanized area, including adjacent suburbs and towns:---http://www.thefreedictionary.com/metropolitan

"With a population of 1,547,085 Chiang Mai is one of Thailand’s largest provinces. Of this number, 170,348 currently live in Chiang Mai’s city area with the rest distributed throughout Chiang Mai’s 21 districts, 2 sub-districts." The Chiang Mai province is a huge area. I have read all sorts of numbers, but the one I would agree on is the city area and the towns surrounding the city make up a population of around 500,000. Seems like a million people to me. Seattle, for instance, is a huge city, with many skyscrapers in downtown, but with an official population of 625,000. But the whole area surrounding Seattle has 4.3 million people. When you think of Seattle you think 4.3 million. When I think of Chiang Mai, I am now thinking 500,000.

Chiang Mai is over one million in the metropolitan area. "Chiang Mai province has a population of around 1,547,085 with 170,348 currently living in Chiang Mai's city area."

http://www.gochiangmai.com/facts.htm

. . and the locals are asking why its getting more expensive. Nice place do that.

Does Chiang Mai not have 1 mill ?

Korat?

Chonburi City ?

The greater Hatyai-Songkhla Metro area is the third largest population center in Thailand, after Bangkok and Chiang Mai, and it is approximately 900,000 people.

Unfortunately, the truth is that nobody knows the actual population of Thailand, or of any any of the cities/metropolitan areas therein. Officially Thailand does a census every 10 years with 2010 being the last time. At that time the Thailand population was declared to be 65,479,453. I have been in Thailand for the census on each of the last two occasions, and I am unaware of any census taking activities whatever - ditto for my family and friends - I don't know how they derive the numbers.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs admits that probably about 5 million were "unregistered in the last census", and that the census does not include "2.2 million illegal and legal migrants in Thailand, including many expatriates". The recent flight of Cambodian workers revealed numbers of more than 4 million migrant workers in Thailand, so we know that all population numbers are grossly inaccurate.

All we know is that Bangkok is between 4 and 15 million, and everything else is much smaller. In centuries past, the city where the castle and court were located was always much larger; the tradition persists.

Chonburi as a province surely must have well in excess of this number. I think it depends upon how you count it, but this area has been designated for industrial growth. They are already struggling to keep up with what they have.

Just wait for the High speed rails to be built then people will move out. The construction of the Kra Canal will also create a new metropolis wherever that is located.