Journal of Geographical Sciences >
New spatial dimensions of global cityscapes: From reviewing existing concepts to a conceptual spatial approach
Author: GEORG Isabel, isabel@southward-georg.com
Received date: 2015-05-12
Accepted date: 2015-09-08
Online published: 2016-07-25
Copyright
Current global urbanisation processes are leading to new forms of massive urban constellations. The conceptualisations and classifications of these, however, are often ambiguous, overlap or lag behind in scientific literature. This article examines whether there is a common denominator to define and delimitate-and ultimately map-these new dimensions of cityscapes. In an extensive literature review we analysed and juxtaposed some of the most common concepts such as megacity, megaregion or megalopolis. We observed that many concepts are abstract or unspecific, and for those concepts for which physical parameters exist, the parameters are neither properly defined nor used in standardised ways. While understandably concepts originate from various disciplines, the authors identify a need for more precise definition and use of parameters. We conclude that often, spatial patterns of large urban areas resemble each other considerably but the definitions vary so widely that these differences may surpass any inconsistencies in the spatial delimitation process. In other words, today we have tools such as earth observation data and Geographic Information Systems to parameterise if clear definitions are provided. This appears not to be the case. The limiting factor when delineating large urban areas seems to be a commonly agreed ontology.
GEORG Isabel , BLASCHKE Thomas , TAUBENBÖCK Hannes . New spatial dimensions of global cityscapes: From reviewing existing concepts to a conceptual spatial approach[J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2016 , 26(3) : 355 -380 . DOI: 10.1007/s11442-016-1273-4
Figure 1 Different scales for Munich: City (with sub-centres), Region, Metropolitan Region |
Figure 2 Mono- and polycentric urban forms |
Figure 3 Corridor city (after Batten, 1995) |
Table 1 Summary of concepts, their characteristics, examples and key literature |
Concept | Examples from literature | Definition criteria identified in literature (only where applicable) | Key literature used in this review | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Population | Typical size | Number of cities or centricity | Physical parameters | Functional features | |||
Megacity | Los Angeles, Moscow, London, Istanbul, Rio de Janeiro, Paris | > 10 million | 1 | Kraas & Mertins, 2008; Fuchs et al., 1994; Gilbert, 1998 | |||
Metacity | Greater Tokyo, Delhi, New York-Newark, Shanghai | > 20 million | 1 | UN-Habitat, 2006; McGrath & Pickett, 2011 | |||
World/Global City | New York, Tokyo, Frankfurt, Zurich | 1 | Company headquarters, financial institutions, cultural and political status | Sassen, 1991; Hall, 1966 & 1998; Friedmann, 1986; GaWC, 2010 | |||
Informational/ Network City | Randstad, San Francisco | 1 | ICT infrastructure | Castells, 1989 & 2002; Batten, 1995 | |||
World City Region | London, Istanbul, Randstad, RhineRuhr | (> 1 million) | Mono- or polycentric | Similar to World City but with internal connections | Kunzmann, 1998; Scott, 2000; Bronger & Trettin, 2011 | ||
Ribbon development | Bangkok, Hangzhou | Up to 100 km away from center | 1 | Settlements along infrastructure line | Multifunctional settlement pattern (residential, industrial, trade) | Kraas, 2010; Douglass, 2000 | |
Urban sprawl | Atlanta, Houston, Melbourne | 1 | Scattered and leapfrog development on urban fringe | Tsai, 2005; Siedentop, 2005; Glaeser & Kahn, 2003 | |||
Conurbation/ City region | Greater London, Lancashire, Midlands, Greater Paris | > 1 million | One hour travel time | Polycentric | Transport infrastructure, few open spaces between cities | Commuting patterns | Geddes, 1915; Fawcett, 1932; Soja & Kanai, 2007 |
Metropolitan area (MA) | Calgary, Helsinki, Rome, Phoenix | > 500,000 | OECD, 2012 | ||||
Functional Urban Region/Area (FUR/FUA) | Vancouver, Vienna, Paris, Dublin, Madrid | Commuting distance | Mono- or polycentric | Core plus smaller fringe towns | Interdependency, commuting patterns | Hall, 2009; OECD, 2012; Piacentini & Rosina, 2012 | |
Urban Field | Miami, San Francisco, Denver, Chicago, Boston | Core population: > 300,000 | Commuting distance | Mono- or polycentric | Interdependency, commuting patterns | Friedmann & Miller, 1965 | |
City systems, urban networks | Randstad, Kansai | Transport infrastructure | Interdependency; ICT infrastructure | Van Houtum & Lagendijk, 2001 | |||
Metropolitan/ Urban agglomeration | Ho Chi Minh City, Mumbai, Buenos Aires, Istanbul, New York, London | Core plus urbanized fringe | Bronger & Trettin, 2011 | ||||
Metropolitan region | Randstad, Pearl River Delta, RhineRuhr | Polycentric | Core plus less urbanized fringe; transport infrastructure | ICT infrastructure | Bronger & Trettin, 2011; Castells, 2002 | ||
Metroplex | Dallas-Fort Worth, Randstad, Detroit-Windsor | 2 or more | Spatially distinct urban cores | Lang & Nelson, 2007 | |||
Mega-City Region (MCR) | RhineRuhr, Randstad, South-East England | Main city: > 10 million | 10-50 | ITC infrastructure, commuting patterns | Hall & Pain, 2006; Halbert, Pain & Thierstein, 2006; Soja & Kanai, 2007 | ||
Megalopolis | Bos-Wash, Great Lakes (Quebec-Milwaukee) | > 25 million | Polycentric | Transport infrastructure | Gottmann, 1957 & 1976 | ||
Megapolitan | Midwest/Great Lakes, Piedmont Atlantic, Southern California | Anchor cities: 50-200 miles apart | 2 or more | Formed of metropolitan areas | ITC infrastructure, commuting patterns | Lang & Dhavale, 2003; Morrison Institute, 2008 | |
Megaregion (USA) | Midwest/Great Lakes, Piedmont Atlantic, Southern California, Texas Triangle | Polycentric | Formed of megapolitans | Lang & Dhavale, 2003; Morrison Institute, 2008; Ross, 2008; Banerjee, 2009 | |||
Mega-region | Pearl River Delta, Tokyo-Kobe, São Paulo-Rio de Janeiro; Nile Valley | Larger than mega- and metacities | Polycentric | UN-Habitat, 2008; Florida, Gulden & Mellander, 2007 | |||
Urban corridor | Bos-Wash, Blue Banana, BESETO | Several 100 km long | Polycentric | Linear pattern, transport routes, city clusters | ICT infrastructure | Whebell, 1989; Li & Cao, 2005; Chapman et al., 2003; Choe, 1996 |
Table 2 Grouping of the different concepts |
Type | Shape | Extent in travel time | Extent in distance | Number of major cities | Infrastructure |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Megacity | Point | 1 | Undefined | ||
Metacity | |||||
Metropolis | |||||
Ribbon Development | Linear | Up to >1 hr | 1 | Undefined | |
Urban Sprawl | Galactic | <1 to >2 hr | 1 | Undefined | |
Conurbation | Galactic | 1 hr | ≥2 | Road, tram | |
Metropolitan Area | |||||
Urban Agglomeration | |||||
Functional Urban Region (FUR) | Galactic | 2 hr | ≥1 | Undefined | |
Urban Field | |||||
City System | |||||
Urban Network | |||||
Larger Urban Zone (LUZ) | |||||
Mega-City Region (MCR) | Galactic | ≥2 and up to 50 | Undefined | ||
Megalopolis | |||||
Mega-(Urban) Region | |||||
Mega-Metropolitan Region | |||||
Megapolitan | Galactic | 50-200 mi | ≥2 | Undefined | |
Metropolitan Agglomeration | Galactic | ≥2 | High-speed road/rail | ||
Metropolitan Region | |||||
Metroplex | |||||
Urban Corridor | Linear | >1500 km | High-speed road/rail |
Figure 4 Comparison of spatial footprints of different concepts |
Figure 5 Concepts overlaid and with their infrastructure network removed |
Figure 6 Spatial juxtaposition of different concepts for large urban areas |
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
[1] |
|
[2] |
|
[3] |
|
[4] |
|
[5] |
|
[6] |
|
[7] |
|
[8] |
|
[9] |
|
[10] |
|
[11] |
|
[12] |
|
[13] |
|
[14] |
|
[15] |
|
[16] |
|
[17] |
|
[18] |
|
[19] |
|
[20] |
|
[21] |
|
[22] |
|
[23] |
|
[24] |
|
[25] |
|
[26] |
|
[27] |
|
[28] |
|
[29] |
|
[30] |
|
[31] |
|
[32] |
|
[33] |
|
[34] |
|
[35] |
|
[36] |
|
[37] |
|
[38] |
|
[39] |
|
[40] |
EC, 1999. Sixth Periodic Report on Social and Economic Situation and Development of Regions in the EU. European Commission, Brussels.
|
[41] |
EC, 2004. Urban Audit. Methodological Handbook. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
|
[42] |
EEA, 2013. Urban Atlas. Available online: (accessed 16. Apr. 2015).
|
[43] |
|
[44] |
|
[45] |
ESPON, 2011. LUZ Specifications (Urban Audit 2004). Technical Report.
|
[46] |
|
[47] |
Eurostat, 2013 (accessed 16. Apr. 2015.
|
[48] |
|
[49] |
|
[50] |
|
[51] |
|
[52] |
|
[53] |
|
[54] |
|
[55] |
|
[56] |
|
[57] |
|
[58] |
|
[59] |
|
[60] |
|
[61] |
|
[62] |
|
[63] |
GaWC, 2010. The World According to GaWC 2010 (; accessed 16. Apr. 2015.
|
[64] |
|
[65] |
|
[66] |
|
[67] |
|
[68] |
|
[69] |
|
[70] |
|
[71] |
|
[72] |
Great Britain Historical GIS Project (GBHGISP), 2004. ‘Great Britain Historical GIS’. University of Portsmouth (available from: , accessed 16. Apr. 2015).
|
[73] |
|
[74] |
|
[75] |
|
[76] |
|
[77] |
|
[78] |
|
[79] |
|
[80] |
|
[81] |
|
[82] |
|
[83] |
|
[84] |
IKM (Initiativkreis Europäische Metropolregionen in Deutschland)
|
[85] |
|
[86] |
|
[87] |
|
[88] |
|
[89] |
|
[90] |
|
[91] |
|
[92] |
|
[93] |
|
[94] |
|
[95] |
|
[96] |
|
[97] |
|
[98] |
|
[99] |
|
[100] |
|
[101] |
|
[102] |
|
[103] |
|
[104] |
|
[105] |
|
[106] |
|
[107] |
|
[108] |
|
[109] |
|
[110] |
|
[111] |
|
[112] |
|
[113] |
|
[114] |
|
[115] |
OECD, 2012. Redefining “Urban”: A new way to measure metropolitan areas. OECD Publishing.
|
[116] |
(accessed 16. Apr. 2015).
|
[117] |
|
[118] |
|
[119] |
|
[120] |
|
[121] |
|
[122] |
|
[123] |
|
[124] |
|
[125] |
|
[126] |
|
[127] |
|
[128] |
|
[129] |
|
[130] |
|
[131] |
|
[132] |
|
[133] |
|
[134] |
|
[135] |
|
[136] |
|
[137] |
|
[138] |
|
[139] |
|
[140] |
|
[141] |
|
[142] |
|
[143] |
|
[144] |
|
[145] |
|
[146] |
|
[147] |
|
[148] |
|
[149] |
UN-DESA, 2011. Population Distribution, Urbanization, Internal Migration and Development: An International Perspective. New York: United Nations Publications.
|
[150] |
UN-DESA, 2012. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2011 Revision. New York: United Nations Publications.
|
[151] |
UN-Habitat, 2006. State of the World’s Cities Report 2006/7. London & Sterling, VA: Earthscan.
|
[152] |
UN-Habitat, 2008a. State of the World’s Cities 2010/2011: Bridging the Urban Divide. London & Sterling, VA: Earthscan.
|
[153] |
UN-Habitat, 2008b. The State of African Cities 2008. A framework for addressing urban challenges in Africa. Nairobi.
|
[154] |
UN-Habitat, 2009. Planning Sustainable Cities. Global Report on Human Settlements 2009. London and Sterling, VA: Earthscan.
|
[155] |
|
[156] |
|
[157] |
|
[158] |
|
[159] |
|
[160] |
|
/
〈 |
|
〉 |