A.J.Rimmer Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Whoops! Looks like I screwed it up... it is there though. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted March 4, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted March 4, 2012 Aaaarrrgghh! It's not difficult to embed a link - just click "quote" on a post that's got one in it and you can see how it's done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Moar tube maps, click for big. This one shows the platforms at the stations, which may or may not be interesting depending on how often you use the London Underground. I've stopped a train at several of those platforms, yay me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted March 13, 2012 Moderator Share Posted March 13, 2012 I'm rarely in here so forgive me if this is an Irish centre back in a refuse recepticle. Reasons never to leave Portland 1. Cheapest weed 2. ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Little while back I asked a friend's lad how much he and his mates paid for dope. It was basically pretty much the same as we used to pay as teenagers twenty odd years ago. Look at how much everything else has gone up. Who are the crooks again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted March 14, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted March 14, 2012 I believe I posted that map or one very similar a while back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrDuck Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 Little while back I asked a friend's lad how much he and his mates paid for dope. It was basically pretty much the same as we used to pay as teenagers twenty odd years ago. Look at how much everything else has gone up. Who are the crooks again? The weed economy seems to be entirely independent of the world economy and entirely resistant to inflation. I haven't seen it change in 20 years. Deserving of further studies! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted March 16, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted March 16, 2012 I distantly recalling reading (when I was a kid in the 1960s) that the world's entire population at the time could fit onto the Isle of Wight, allowing one square yard for each person to stand on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 Quite sure New York City and Singapore have higher population densities than Paris.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milfner Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 Yeah, was thinking the same about Cairo too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted March 16, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted March 16, 2012 Wiki cites Paris' density as 54,300 per square mile. Of course, this is based on the municipal boundaries of Paris (population 2.2m). New York City is 27,013 per square mile (this includes the Outer Boroughs: Bronx (density: 32k/square mile), Queens (density: 21k/square mile), Brooklyn (36k/square mile), and Staten Island (density: 8k/square mile))... Manhattan (what pretty much everybody not from NYC means when they say NY) has a density of 71k/square mile, but, area-wise, is insignificant in the context of New York City: [table] [row][mcol]Population[mcol]Area [mrow]Manhattan[col]1.6m[col]23 square miles [mrow]Bronx[col]1.4m[col]42 square miles [mrow]Queens[col]2.2m[col]109 square miles [mrow]Brooklyn[col]2.5m[col]71 square miles [mrow]Staten Island[col]500k[col]58 square miles [/table] Even though Brooklyn and Queens have larger populations than Manhattan, residents of those boroughs will often refer to Manhattan as "the city". Singapore's density, for the record, is 19k per square mile. Densest urban areas (based on actually settled land area as opposed to purely political divisions), minimum 2m population [table] [row][mcol]Population[mcol]Area[mcol]Density (per km^2; multiply by ~2.5 to get per mi^2) [mrow]Dhaka, Bangladesh[col]11.5m[col]324 km^2[col]35k [mrow]Mumbai[col]21.3m[col]777[col]27k [mrow]Surat, India[col]4.3m[col]161[col]26k [mrow]Chittagong, Bangladesh[col]2.9m[col]111[col]26k [mrow]Hong Kong[col]7m[col]275[col]26k [mrow]Jaipur, India[col]4.2m[col]168[col]25k [mrow]Bogota[col]8.6m[col]414[col]21k [mrow]Kolkata[col]15.8m[col]803[col]20k [mrow]Ahmedabad[col]5.8m[col]298[col]20k [mrow]Medellin, Colombia[col]3.6m[col]189[col]19k [row][mrow]Manila[col]21.3m[col]1425[col]15k [row][mrow]Delhi[col]22.6m[col]1567[col]14k [row][mrow]Singapore[col]5.1m[col]466[col]11k[col](area is not including the approximate quarter of Singapore's land that's forest preserve, nor various islands that are not that densely populated) [row][mrow]Seoul[col]22.5m[col]2163[col]10k [row][mrow]Mexico City[col]19.6m[col]2020[col]9700 [row][mrow]Istanbul[col]13.3m[col]1399[col]9500 [row][mrow]Jakarta[col]22.2m[col]2784[col]8000 [row][mrow]Sao Paulo[col]20.4m[col]2914[col]7000 [row][mrow]Shanghai[col]18.7m[col]2914[col]6400 [row][mrow]Rio de Janeiro[col]12.0m[col]2020[col]5900 [row][mrow]Madrid[col]5.4m[col]945[col]5700 [row][mrow]London[col]8.6m[col]1623[col]5300 [row][mrow]Barcelona[col]4.2m[col]803[col]5200 [row][mrow]Buenos Aires[col]13.1m[col]2681[col]4900 [row][mrow]Beijing[col]14.2m[col]3302[col]4300 [row][mrow]Tokyo[col]36.7m[col]9065[col]4100 [row][mrow]Manchester[col]2.2m[col]558[col]4000 [row][mrow]Birmingham[col]2.3m[col]600[col]3800 [mrow]St Petersburg[col]4.6m[col]1191[col]3800 [row][mrow]Berlin[col]3.5m[col]984[col]3500 [row][mrow]Paris[col]10.5m[col]3043[col]3500 [row][mrow]Bangkok[col]7.1m[col]2202[col]3200 [row][mrow]Rome[col]2.7m[col]855[col]3200 [row][mrow]Moscow[col]13.7m[col]4533[col]3000 [row][mrow]Essen-Dusseldorf[col]7.3m[col]2642[col]2800 [mrow]Toronto[col]5.9m[col]2279[col]2600 [row][mrow]Dubai[col]3.2m[col]1230[col]2600 [mrow]Los Angeles[col]14.9m[col]5812[col]2600 [row][mrow]San Francisco[col]5.8m[col]2663[col]2200 [row][mrow]Sydney[col]3.8m[col]1788[col]2100 [mrow]Montreal[col]3.4m[col]1677[col]2050 [mrow]Phoenix[col]4.1m[col]2069[col]2000 [mrow]Miami[col]5.5m[col]2891[col]1900 [mrow]Milan[col]4.4m[col]2370[col]1800 [mrow]New York City[col]20.7m[col]11,264[col]1800 [mrow]Denver[col]2.4m[col]1292[col]1800 [mrow]Vancouver[col]2.0m[col]1136[col]1800 [mrow]Melbourne[col]3.5m[col]2152[col]1600 [mrow]Chicago[col]9.2m[col]5952[col]1600 [mrow]Washington[col]4.6m[col]2996[col]1500 [mrow]Houston[col]5.0m[col]3463[col]1500 [mrow]Dallas[col]5.7m[col]3959[col]1500 [row][mrow]Baltimore[col]2.2m[col]1768[col]1300 [mrow]Seattle[col]3.1m[col]2470[col]1200 [row][mrow]Philadelphia[col]5.3m[col]4661[col]1200 [mrow]Atlanta[col]4.8m[col]5083[col]930 [mrow]Boston[col]4.8m[col]5501[col]880 [/table] (I'm not making this up: Boston is the least-densely populated major urban area on the planet...) The_Rev's map fairly clearly shows that if you think there is any danger of human overpopulation, you should probably start your "end/prevent overpopulation" crusade by sticking a shotgun in your mouth. That action would also have the salutary benefit of infinitesimally raising the collective intelligence level of humanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 Paris isn't bigger than London is it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 No, but there are so many definitions of what makes a city and those definitions vary wildly from country it is difficult to agree. Depending on what you use, the population of Paris can be anything between 2m and 10m. London can be from about 7m to 12m. A famous example of this is the fact that Manchester United are not actually in Manchester, despite the ground being about two miles from Manchester city centre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 No, but there are so many definitions of what makes a city and those definitions vary wildly from country it is difficult to agree. Depending on what you use, the population of Paris can be anything between 2m and 10m. London can be from about 7m to 12m. A famous example of this is the fact that Manchester United are not actually in Manchester, despite the ground being about two miles from Manchester city centre. My point exactly - and this goes to show that none of these stats are particularly accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted March 18, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted March 18, 2012 The only (allowing for different dimensions or different shapes) generally comparable definition is: Urban area: a contiguous collection of 1 km x 1 km squares of minimum population (thus minimum density: something like 500 per km^2 is probably good enough to capture built-up areas), such squares not necessarily being in a grid (i.e. if it's possible to draw a 1 km x 1 km square such that a given point is in a qualifying square, that point is part of the urban area). Of course, the choice of the minimum density is going to affect the boundaries of a given urban area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norton65ca Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 "The_Rev's map fairly clearly shows that if you think there is any danger of human overpopulation, you should probably start your "end/prevent overpopulation" crusade by sticking a shotgun in your mouth. That action would also have the salutary benefit of infinitesimally raising the collective intelligence level of humanity." Nice. But surely the debate isn't concerned so much with absolute numbers of humans, but rather with the effects of all of those humans on a closed system with finite resources? Lack of available potable water in many areas of the world is a good example. Pure population growth is not the issue, the issue is how to enable all these people to live their lives without dying of starvation and water borne diseases? I've been to the third world a number of times, it ain't pretty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted March 18, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted March 18, 2012 There is more than enough potable water in North America to support the current world population, and you can fit 10 billion people into 2 million square miles, which is a tiny proportion of North America (the resulting density would be 5,000 per square mile, or basically standard for a leafy upper middle class suburb in North America (i.e. not a favela)). There's quite simply no reason for large numbers of people to live in the third world. As a basic question of social justice, all immigration restrictions should be lifted (and if one claims to support social justice but do not support unrestricted immigration, one's a hypocrite and I don't see any need to pay anything you say on anything any heed). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 http://www.openstreetmap.org/ This is actually very nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts