On 30/08/2012 10:44, News wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 30/08/2012 10:25, News wrote:
Cities have a natural footprint limit. The generally accepted limit
is that if it takes over an hour to travel from one side to the
other its expansion naturally tails off.

Explain supercities then.

London, New York, Tokyo might give you a clue. Keep looking.

Try getting across any of those in an hour.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

Graeme Wall wrote:
On 30/08/2012 10:44, News wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 30/08/2012 10:25, News wrote:
Cities have a natural footprint limit. The generally accepted limit
is that if it takes over an hour to travel from one side to the
other its expansion naturally tails off.

Explain supercities then.

London, New York, Tokyo might give you a clue. Keep looking.

Try getting across any of those in an hour.

Such a wayward mind. The point is supercities. Duh!

Graeme Wall wrote:

Cities have a natural footprint limit. The generally accepted limit
is that if it takes over an hour to travel from one side to the
other its expansion naturally tails off.

Explain supercities then.

London, New York, Tokyo might give you a clue. Keep looking.

Try getting across any of those in an hour.


London developed largely by expansion of its sattellite towns and villages
in the commuter belt to the point that they fused into one another before
the limits of the greenbelt were set, and then later local government
reorganisation came along and fused them together. It's somewhat different
from a town expanding outwards until it hit its limit.

One could have a more than semantic discussion about what "London" is - very
few people use "Manchester" to mean the whole Greater Manchester area, and
try applying "Birmingham" to the West Midlands county, but with London it's
somewhat more confused with the two terms frequently used interchangeably
(look for instance at the current government arrangements with the "Greater
London Authority" consisting of the "Mayor of London" and the "London
Assembly"). The argument about whether the outer London zones are "London"
usually boils down to the Royal Mail policies, but the strong local identity
in at least some of the suburbs and the history of absorption rather than
straight on expansion makes it a more open question.

--
My blog: http://adf.ly/4hi4c

On 30/08/2012 12:36, Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:

Cities have a natural footprint limit. The generally accepted limit
is that if it takes over an hour to travel from one side to the
other its expansion naturally tails off.

Explain supercities then.

London, New York, Tokyo might give you a clue. Keep looking.

Try getting across any of those in an hour.


London developed largely by expansion of its sattellite towns and villages
in the commuter belt to the point that they fused into one another before
the limits of the greenbelt were set, and then later local government
reorganisation came along and fused them together. It's somewhat different
from a town expanding outwards until it hit its limit.

London expanded outwards and absorbed towns and villages around it.
Those towns and villages largely expanded as dormitories dependant on
London as a source of jobs rather than the expansion being driven by
internal activity. It is debatable as to whether it has yet hit it's
limit. The political boundaries are, by definition, artificial and
don't necessarily map to the practical boundaries.


One could have a more than semantic discussion about what "London" is - very
few people use "Manchester" to mean the whole Greater Manchester area, and
try applying "Birmingham" to the West Midlands county, but with London it's
somewhat more confused with the two terms frequently used interchangeably
(look for instance at the current government arrangements with the "Greater
London Authority" consisting of the "Mayor of London" and the "London
Assembly"). The argument about whether the outer London zones are "London"
usually boils down to the Royal Mail policies, but the strong local identity
in at least some of the suburbs and the history of absorption rather than
straight on expansion makes it a more open question.


Where I lived as a small child was well outside what people generally
recognised as London. It is now well inside what people generally
recognise as London. Even the county has been absorbed into London.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:27:02 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
Where I lived as a small child was well outside what people generally
recognised as London. It is now well inside what people generally
recognise as London. Even the county has been absorbed into London.

Probably the most accurate definition today would be any built up area
within the M25.

B2003

d wrote:

Where I lived as a small child was well outside what people generally
recognised as London. It is now well inside what people generally
recognise as London. Even the county has been absorbed into London.

Probably the most accurate definition today would be any built up area
within the M25.

Cue howls of protest from the likes of Epsom and Watford...

--
My blog: http://adf.ly/4hi4c

On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 14:14:06 +0100
"Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote:
wrote:

Where I lived as a small child was well outside what people generally
recognised as London. It is now well inside what people generally
recognise as London. Even the county has been absorbed into London.

Probably the most accurate definition today would be any built up area
within the M25.

Cue howls of protest from the likes of Epsom and Watford...

Tough )

Apart from about 3 fields the built up part of watford is contiguous all the
way to central london.

B2003

On 30/08/2012 14:25, d wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 14:14:06 +0100
"Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote:
d wrote:

Where I lived as a small child was well outside what people generally
recognised as London. It is now well inside what people generally
recognise as London. Even the county has been absorbed into London.

Probably the most accurate definition today would be any built up area
within the M25.

Cue howls of protest from the likes of Epsom and Watford...

Tough )

Apart from about 3 fields the built up part of watford is contiguous all the
way to central london.

B2003


Crap, there is farmland on both London Road and Oxhey Lane.

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

On 30/08/2012 14:14, Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:
d wrote:

Where I lived as a small child was well outside what people generally
recognised as London. It is now well inside what people generally
recognise as London. Even the county has been absorbed into London.

Probably the most accurate definition today would be any built up area
within the M25.

Cue howls of protest from the likes of Epsom and Watford...


They may howl but they have been effectively part of London for many
years. See also Salford/Manchester.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 14:29:29 +0100, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 30/08/2012 14:14, Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:
d wrote:

Where I lived as a small child was well outside what people generally
recognised as London. It is now well inside what people generally
recognise as London. Even the county has been absorbed into London.

Probably the most accurate definition today would be any built up area
within the M25.

Cue howls of protest from the likes of Epsom and Watford...


They may howl but they have been effectively part of London for many
years. See also Salford/Manchester.

England and France also share a border.