Greatest Airport in the World?

[stormbind]

Calcagus, With the same number of runways?

I would like to know which one does more with less.

 

[Pangur Bán]

No idea about no. of runways. You should be careful though, we Europeans tend not to know that American internal flights take up a large portion of total world air traffic (I'd guess it is more than half, but I haven't been able to find any figures )

 

[polymath]

Oh, OK.

Here's a cool link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_busiest_airport

and some more stats as well - http://www.airports.org/traffic/monthly.htm

 

[Ossric]

Originally posted by calgacus
I see your point Marla, but once you get away from official figures, it gets quite subjective. Sure, you can add a few million to Paris's population - but why 11.4 million and not 9.8 million?

Like I said, a city is a city and a conurbation is a conurbation!

i'll give you the example of Antwerp where i live. In the 70'ies there was a tendency to centralize the communities. So communities next to Antwerp where since then considered part of the city (as districts). (you can't really tell where the one starts & the other begins, divisions are made from on street to the other)

Nowadays, there's talk about decentralizing it again. All this is basicly administrative mombo jumbo since everybody feels & see's himself as a citizen of Antwerp. But how big should we consider our city to be? Where does the city end? I'm more inclined to go for Marla's definition.

If you would look at it from an historic point, Antwerp would only be that part that used to be surrounded by the city walls. But that would make no sense..

 

[Drewcifer]

Is there such a thing as the greatest airport in the world?

I love where air travel can take me but don't much enjoy the process. I have never been in an airport that was more than tolerable. Off of the top of my head I have been through Heathrow, Charles de Gaulle, Geneva, Zurich, O'Hare, Atlanta, Boston, Minneapolis/St Paul, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Syracuse, Albany, Indianapolis, Miami, Ft Lauderdale, Dallas/Fort Worth, Charlotte, Bermuda, Cancun, Puerto Vallarta, and Cincinnati. Cancun was the easiest to deal with but that was before the big tourist boom there. It's proximity to beaches and spectacular Mayan ruins probably helped my attitude as did the fact I got off the plane, grabed my bags, went through customs and was in my cab in less than 45 minutes. Of the major hubs Minneapolis/St Paul is the least wretched if the weather is ok because it is not so god awfully crowded like the other ones. O'Hare in Chicago is certainly the worst I have been through from a hassle standpoint.

 

[Pangur Bán]

I agree with you Ossric. I agree that cities ought to be universally defined in that way. Glasgow's official population is about 650,000, but its actual population is more like 1 and half million. Seattle has an official population of about 600,000, but its actual population is nearer 3 million.

My point is that, while this isn't the case, it is not a reliable way for comparing city sizes.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Originally posted by calgacus
Paris, like almost every other large European cities, is surrounded by medium sized towns which blur a city's boundaries. You are talking of a conurbation. Since cities are no longer defined by city-walls, we have no choice but to accept the administrative divisions, simply because there is no other consistent way of determing the size of cities for different cities.

Generally speaking, what we call "suburbs" are made of households and not of appartment buildings. Where I live, buildings are the same than in Paris downtown. The density of population in Paris so-called suburbs are as high or even higher than in Paris itself. The 4 central departments of Paris area with a population of 7 million people have a density of 8,200 people per km² when the Greater London's density is only of 4,500 people per km².

Below, you can see a picture of Neuilly, Courbevoie and Suresnes "suburbs" of Paris. Look at the low buildings, they all have between 6 to 10 floors... and I don't talk about skyscrapers behind ! Do you decently consider we should not count people living there to evaluate the population of Paris ??



We can't compare administrative divisions from a country with those of another simply because they don't mean the same. There are 273 urban districts in whole England, 7302 municipalities in West Germany and 36776 "communes" in whole France. As you can see, the lowest level of administrative division is very different from a country to another. If you think it's because of country size, Spain has about the same size than France and has only 8074 municipalities. Once again I repeat, municipalities' borders in France didn't change since 1789.

You forgot Moscow again I've been to Paris of course, and it definitely feels smaller than Istanbul and London. I entered Paris from Beauvais, and it took about ten minutes on a bus to get from what I recognized as the natural beginning of the city to the central, downtown area. In contrast, it took about 5 hours on the train to get from the beginning of European Istanbul to the Sultanahmet (the old centre of Istanbul) - still on the European side. I find it VERY hard to believe that Paris is bigger than Istanbul.

Two things. The first thing is that highways are going a lot deeper inside the city in Paris than in London. Leaving London by car is hell. Your point of view is highly subjective and by the way, you can't go from the Champs-Elysées to Beauvais in 10 minutes unless you use a helicopter. We need at least an hour using highways at 5 am in the morning to go from there to Beauvais.

The second point is that Paris is a lot denser than London. There are the same population in both cities but Paris area is twice smaller than the one of London. Actually Paris "Intra-muros" is as dense as Manhattan (20,000 people per km² for both cities). London is 4 times less dense than Paris with only 4,500 people per km². Click here to see how tight is Paris.

On the picture above, you can see well how dense is Paris. By the way, just behind the Eiffel Tower, you see what you call the "suburbs" of Paris. Tell me again, that should "objectively" not be considered as part of the city !!

 

[Drewcifer]

I agree with Marla. Suburbs exist as political entities only because the legal definition of cities has not kept up with the geographic reality of them in the last 100 years. According to the US census bureau I live in a city of 260,000 whereas in reality I live in a central city area of a city of 3,000,000. In the US at least (and in most of the rest of the west as well I suspect) the difference between city and metropolitan area has become a semantic one with the rise of the automobile and it's effect on settlement patterns and also with the cities' continued growth after they have reached their statutory boundries.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
Generally speaking, what we call "suburbs" are made of households and not of appartment buildings. Where I live, buildings are the same than in Paris downtown. The density of population in Paris so-called suburbs are as high or even higher than in Paris itself. The 4 central departments of Paris area with a population of 7 million people have a density of 8,200 people per km² when the Greater London's density is only of 4,500 people per km².

[/IMG]

When these "suburbs" are so densely populated, that makes them less of a real part of the main city. Greater London, equally, has such places.

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
We can't compare administrative divisions from a country with those of another simply because they don't mean the same. There are 273 urban districts in whole England, 7302 municipalities in whole Germany and 36776 "communes" in whole France. As you can see, the lowest level of administrative division is very different from a country to another. If you think it's because of country size, Spain has about the same size than France and has only 8074 municipalities.Two things. The first thing is that highways are going a lot deeper inside the city in Paris than in London. Leaving London by car is hell.

I don't disagree with you here. My point, however, is that for comparitive purposes, we have to stick to official definitions of the city.

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
Leaving London by car is hell. Your point of view is highly subjective and by the way, you can't go from the Champs-Elysées to Beauvais in 10 minutes unless you use a helicopter. We need at least an hour using highways at 5 am in the morning to go from there to Beauvais.

That trip took about an hour actually. But what I recognized as a continuous city did not start until about 10 minutes travelling time from the Champs-Elysées

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
The second point is that Paris is a lot denser than London. There are the same population in both cities but Paris area is twice smaller than the one of London. Actually Paris "Intra-muros" is as dense as Manhattan (20,000 people per km² for both cities). London is 4 times less dense than Paris with only 4,500 people per km².

Interesting, but I don't see what it proves here

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
On the picture above, you can see well how dense is Paris. By the way, just behind the Eiffel Tower, you see what you call the "suburbs" of Paris. Tell me again, that should "objectively" not be considered as part of the city !!

That is interesting, because if your "just" is correct, they are definitely part of the "real" city. But it is still impossible to believe that it is bigger than Istanbul, a colossal, seemingly endless city spanning two continents.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Well Calgacus, I'm sorry for the threadjacking.

Sorry to be so annoying about that. The thing is that I'm actively lobbying in an association to change the actual administrative divisions in Ile-de-France because I consider it has bad effects on the devellopment of the metropolitan area. Paris municipality takes advantage of its position as center and bigger municipality to enforce their decisions on suburban areas. As a result, there are many social segregation in the city (poverty, crime, etc..). My involvement makes me a bit over-reacting each time someone is talking about that topic.

I should maybe start another thread about it but I'm not sure people would really be interested about it. So I'll just stop threadjacking.

 

[Perfection]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport is by far the best airport in the United States, if not the world.

Not since they renovated the HHH terminal! It used to be awesome now it's only okay.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
Well Calgacus, I'm sorry for the threadjacking.

Sorry to be so annoying about that. The thing is that I'm actively lobbying in an association to change the actual administrative divisions in Ile-de-France because I consider it has bad effects on the devellopment of the metropolitan area. Paris municipality takes advantage of its position as center and bigger municipality to enforce their decisions on suburban areas. As a result, there are many social segregation in the city (poverty, crime, etc..). My involvement makes me a bit over-reacting each time someone is talking about that topic.

I should maybe start another thread about it but I'm not sure people would really be interested about it. So I'll just stop threadjacking.

I don't mind the "thread-jacking" Airports probably isn't much of an interesting topic anyway.

I've seen you overeact (IMO of course ) quite a bit on CFC, but I don't think you did so here!

 

[Paalikles]

Other: Oslo Gardermoen, Norway

no - wait: Sandefjord Torp, Norway



seriously though, I voted for Schiphol....for good measure

 

[Marla_Singer]

I don't disagree with you here. My point, however, is that for comparitive purposes, we have to stick to official definitions of the city.

Well sorry... I don't want to be insistent again but you're comparing potatoes with carrots. The municipalities in France are outdated. Some examples :

Paris : 2 147 857 people
Metropolitan Area : 11 367 200 people

Lille : 172 100
Metropolitan Area : 1 738 900

Lyon : 453 187
Metropolitan Area : 1 670 919

The worst example coming in my mind would be Lens...
Lens : 36 823
Metropolitan Area : 560 192

All these examples are about coherent cities... not about conurbation or whatsoever.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
Well sorry... I don't want to be insistent again but you're comparing potatoes with carrots. The municipalities in France are outdated. Some examples :

Paris : 2 147 857 people
Metropolitan Area : 11 367 200 people

Lille : 172 100
Metropolitan Area : 1 738 900

Lyon : 453 187
Metropolitan Area : 1 670 919

The worst example coming in my mind would be Lens...
Lens : 36 823
Metropolitan Area : 560 192

All these examples are about coherent cities... not about conurbation or whatsoever.

If I'm comparing potatoes with carrots, you're comparing them with wolf-skins. The difference is populations with these other cities is large in percentage terms, but miniscule in actual terms. Paris' population is increasing by almost twice the population of the Irish Republic, Lens' is increasing by a mere 500,000.

If one source is giving you 11.4 million for Paris Met., why am I finding other sources giving 8 and 9 million?

For those other French cities, I know very little and can't challenge the use of the term "metropolitan". It doesn't make much of a difference anyway. For Paris, I will accept that the "real" city probably goes over the 2 million mark, but I've got no evidence that the "metropolitan" areas of Istanbul, Rome, etc, etc are being interpreted in the same way. I think that you should pause for a moment and think about that, since it is my central point and doesn't seem to have been grasped by yourself.

Anyway, I though you were letting this one go?

 

[thestonesfan]

I haven't been to many, and none of those listed above except Chicago's. It's entirely too big, and there were no carts to haul me around.

I don't like travelling in general. I hate flying, but driving long distances is even worse.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Originally posted by calgacus
If I'm comparing potatoes with carrots, you're comparing them with wolf-skins. The difference is populations with these other cities is large in percentage terms, but miniscule in actual terms. Paris' population is increasing by almost twice the population of the Irish Republic, Lens' is increasing by a mere 500,000.

I've already told it to you 5 times ! The city borders didn't change in France since 1789 ! Our administrative divisions had been thought for the peasants country France was at the end of the 18th century.

As a result, cities that have grown the most during the Industrial Revolution have completely outdated local administrative divisions. The most stunnning of that would be in Northern France with cities like Lille, Lens, Metz or Nancy. Those place have grown at the time of Mining and Metallurgy but politicians never wanted to change city borders mainly because of political problems (the wealthy communes didn't want to lose their money, the communist mayor of A couldn't stand the conservative member of B, etc...). That's the same story about Lyon too.

If one source is giving you 11.4 million for Paris Met., why am I finding other sources giving 8 and 9 million?

About Paris now, the region has 12 million people but the eastern and southern part of it is rural (not urbanized). As our municipalities can't determine the actual economical weight of a city (because it's outdated), the INSEE (French statistics) has determined two levels to measure the population :

- Unité Urbaine (Urban Unity) : that encompass all municipalities that form a homogeneous urbanized unity. The population of Paris "Unité Urbaine" is of 9,718,572 people.

- Commauté de communes (Communes Communities) : that encompass all municipalities economically dependant on the core city (Paris). The economical dependancy is determined by the percentage of the labour force working outside the city. The INSEE considered that if 70% of the Labour force of a municipality are actually working in cities of the Urban Unity, then that municipality belongs to the "Communauté de communes". The Population of Paris C.C. is of 11.5 million people. It's not the same people as in Ile-de-France since it encompasses people living in Picardie and not people from the South East of the region.

For those other French cities, I know very little and can't challenge the use of the term "metropolitan". It doesn't make much of a difference anyway. For Paris, I will accept that the "real" city probably goes over the 2 million mark, but I've got no evidence that the "metropolitan" areas of Istanbul, Rome, etc, etc are being interpreted in the same way. I think that you should pause for a moment and think about that, since it is my central point and doesn't seem to have been grasped by yourself.

I've thought about it as I'm working in these things actually. The most objective figures to compare population of European cities are those used by the World Gazetteer website. That site purpose is actually to create international decent way to compare cities population.

According to those figures, the metropolitan area of Rome is of 3.5 million people when the city itself encompasses 2.5 million people. Berlin municipality has 3.3 million people when its metropolitan area is of 3.9 million people. However, Paris municipality is of 2 million people when the metropolitan area is of 11 million people. The criteria used to determine the population of metropolitan areas are the same for all countries. I repeat it once again.

The "communes" administrative division is outdated in France. The current prime minister Raffarin considers we should give more power to "Unités Urbaines" now because it's the best way to manage urbanism in French cities. According to me, we should form a "Greater Paris" municipality just like had been created a "Greater London" one in England. However, as I already told it... many local powers would be opposed to it.

 

[jpowers]

Since they made renovations at CDG, that's become my favorite.

 

[Pangur Bán]

You may have told me that five times, but you shouldn't assume that it makes any difference. It doesn't. France isn't the only country to use out dated definitions of cities. Moreover, many "cities" of that period had more territory than urban area.

That website does not do what you claim. It admits that it is dependent on information provided by the countries themselves (on the info/help section)! Your claim that "most objective figures to compare population of European cities are those used by the World Gazetteer website. That site purpose is actually to create international decent way to compare cities population." - this claim is almost totally fictitious.

I'd say that your "Unité Urbaine" would be a good one, if it is actually what you claim, but only if "homogeneous urbanized unity" is what I think it is. The Commauté de communes definition is totally counter-intuitive, so should be rejected as the definition of any city.

Taking your word for it, Paris's population seems to actually lie somewhere between 2.1 and 9.7 million. If the same definition were applied worldwide, then we'd be on to something; but as I told you a good bunch of times, it isn't. For the purposes of comparison, I'll just have to accept that Paris has 2.1 millions of people. Sorry, you tried hard MArla, but we haven't gotten much further from where we were.

 

[polymath]

Objectively speaking, saying Paris only has 2.1 million people is just ridiculous - and if that is what the 'definition' of Paris says, then it is perfectly obvious that the flimsy definition is wrong.

If you had asked me the population of Paris before this thread the figure of 8 or 9 million would have leaped into my head - exactly the same as I would have guessed at for London. The two are pretty much the same size.

I agree 100% with Marla but not based in any way on municipalities or homogenous this-or-that - based on what any normal person would estimate the population of Paris to be. (And I make no apologies for claiming to be a normal person )