Urban conurbation isn't silly. I've seen the terms 'urban conurbation' and 'rural conurbation' both used. Mintguy - Does the San Francisco Bay Area qualify as a conurbation? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:28, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
-
- I find it strange that the New York Metropolitan Area (and perhaps even the Washington, New York, Boston Urban Corridor) are not included in the examples. --WikiMartin 16:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Locals would know such things better than people half a world away. Conurbs seem to ne an unavoidable outcome of the automobile culture. I suspect that there are hundreds, of different syles. Alex Law 01:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
This list is getting outta hand. It's turning into a "List of every City Ever, Some of Which may be Conurbations or not but Who Cares". - Randwicked Alex B 14:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC) - I nuked it. - Randwicked Alex B 09:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
There are going to be more nad more conurbation areas as we grow older. At some point on the future i bet that it will be rare to see a gap between cities and countys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.159.44 (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC) [edit] De-stubbed This article appears to be of an appropriate length for the subject matter under discussion. As part of my personal crusade to free up articles that have been stubbed and tagged for no apparent reason, this article has been disenstubified. If any editor disagrees, and would rather re-stub it than add actual content, please discuss here. The Editrix 14:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC) - "disenstubified" -- I love it! I think that "Disenstubify" belongs in the Wiktionary. SFFrog (talk) 01:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Long Term Concerns This seems rather unencyclopedic - like an environmentalist's manifesto. If this is to be included, there should be info on why conurbations form and why people seem to like living in them. Algr (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC) - I agree. There are a couple references, but the whole thing seems rather one-sided to me. It refers to environmental and social concerns without addressing much else, then segues into a sort of semi-Marxist class warfare analysis that seems awfully speculative to me. Fedallah (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Added a tag to this section, and to the article as a whole. The whole thing is unreferenced, partial, and generally unencyclopedic. It reads like a student essay, and a pretty poor one at that. If I remember to do so I'll have a go at improving it at some future date, but hopefully someone else better qualified will get in before I do. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- The whole section strikes me as one-sided, political, unsupported by references, and probably containing inaccuracies and maybe even nonsense. For example, the writer whines about the loss of land and habitat for animals as people build habitat for humans in conurbations. But the alternative of building those same human habitats farther away from urban areas would still consume as much land or more with similar effects. I'd be in favor of deleting the entire section if it is not improved soon. (It has already been tagged about two months but maybe that is not quite long enough.) 72.208.61.246 (talk) 12:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I fully support 72.208.61.246 on this - I have again deleted the text as it is wholly biased and POV. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Examples Some examples cited in the article are not conurbations, but agglomerations. Conurbations don't evolve around a single city, but around multiple centers and bedroom communities don't count as centers. As such, London, Los Angeles and Brisbane have to go. Admiral Norton (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC) - I think "have to go" is too strong - we should get a consensus first. I don't know about LA and Brisbane - you may be right in one sense about London, but there are other major centres within the built-up area (e.g. Croydon), and it is defined in official statistics as a conurbation (I'll need to find a reference for that). The whole article could do with a fundamental rewrite, but there are always going to be problems about people wanting to include or exclude their pet areas. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- South East Queensland is in a sense a conurbation of the cities of Brisbane and the Gold Coast, as they started distinct cities and merged through suburban sprawl. The other municipalities listed are just suburban areas that have always been subordinate to Brisbane. In the meantime I'll rewrite that section to clarify. - Aucitypops (talk) 09:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Actually maybe I won't, as it's not the best example and would be better deleted. The large "example" lists these articles tend to accumulate should be discouraged. It would be best to have just one or two "classic" examples for illustration. The Ruhr Area comes to mind as the granddaddy of conurbations. - Aucitypops (talk) 10:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- In fact, LA might be considered a conurbation, but the LA metro area isn't several medium-sized cities that have grown towards each other, but one big city that absorbed lots of smaller towns. Same with London. If we could consider London a conurbation (regardless what official statistics state - there is an expert definition of a conurbation not subject to local changes), then we could consider any megapolis with a few bedroom communities and edge cities a conurbation. I'm not trying to be harsh, but the definition is very clear. BTW, I was wrong about Brisbane, its metro area really is a conurbation and Aucitypops, Ruhr is indeed the best example. Admiral Norton (talk) 22:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Definition It would be incorrect to say that a conurbation consists of several metropolitan areas. It consists of cities that have evolved to merge their urban areas, but still retain their distinctiveness. A conurbation is not an area which is known mostly for one city, but also includes some small suburbs, that is an agglomeration. Conurbation is made out of two or more cities being roughly the same size. Admiral Norton (talk) 12:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC) - It would be helpful if Admiral Norton could provide some citation for the comments that "a conurbation consists of several metropolitan areas"; or that it is "made out of two or more cities being roughly the same size". That is one editor's opinion, but it is not necessarily a shared view. Some conurbations - such as London, to give the obvious example - are dominated by a single main centre but also contain many other smaller historic centres. That still makes "Greater London" a conurbation, at least in UK usage of the term. This site gives more information on definitions used in the UK. For example, C. B. Fawcett: "a conurbation is an area occupied by a continuous series of dwellings, factories and other buildings, harbour and docks, urban parks and playing fields, etc which are not separated from each other by rural land." Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- Is London really a conurbation or is it just a British definition? According to your definition, I could as well name Brasília a conurbation. According to Geddes's book London is an agglomeration, not a conurbation, since it is predominantly one city with suburbs, like any other. The reference No. 3 provides a British view of the subject, which is fine, but not acceptable since it isn't the worldwide view. This problem is similar to the nearside/outside motorway lane. The difference here is that this isn't an article about motorways in UK, but about conurbations in the whole world. Admiral Norton (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- Admiral Norton's edits state that "the definition [of a conurbation] is very clear", and you clearly have a strong view that it is something different to an "agglomeration". Could you provide citations for the "very clear" definition, and for your views on the difference between a conurbation and an agglomeration? Unlike Brasilia, London did form through coalescence of existing settlements, albeit dominated by outwards spread from one main central area (well, two technically and historically - London and Westminster). I really don't want to argue the point unnecessarily, and would be happy to have a wording in the article that recognises that different definitions of "conurbation" may exist - which may be differences between countries, or simply between different experts. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know where you heard about this agglomeration being conurbation thing, but I was taught in school and I read books saying conurbation and agglomeration are different things. Agglomeration is the expansion of a metropolitan area around one major core and conurbation is the expansion around two or more equally important major cores. E.g. Zagreb also formed through annexation of nearby settlements and it also formed from two cities: Gradec and Kaptol of which none has been more dominant than the other (this does not apply to London and Westminster), and yet it isn't viewed as a conurbation. It was a conurbation, but it ceased being one either in 1851, when Gradec and Kaptol were made mere neighborhoods by unification of Zagreb; or around the end of the 19th century by which time the city expanded enough so that neighborhoods that were larger than the original cities were formed, such as Peščenica or center. Although it previously had two cores, the city has expanded so much that these cores remain indiscernable on small maps, similar to London.
- I guess you wouldn't deem a geography textbook a reliable source, so I'll try to find better sources tomorrow. Good night.
- P.S. Please don't refer to me in third person. I don't know for UK, but it's offensive in my country. Admiral Norton (talk) 23:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- This is an article talk page not a user talk page, so others may wish to be involved in the discussion, and it's helpful if everyone knows whose comments are being referred to. That's the only reason - apologies for any offense caused. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- In relation to your substantive point, the administrative arrangements that applied in Croatia shouldn't be assumed to apply elsewhere - they don't. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I propose merging with Metropolitan area. The distinction that is sought does not exist. Look, for example at the Dallas metropolitan area (sometimes called the Dallas-Ft. Worth metropolitan area. Look at Los Angeles. Look at the Midland-Odessa "metroplex". Look even the Albuquerque metropolitan area which subsumes Rio Rancho and Bernaillo in Sandoval County. --70.57.246.220 (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC) - Oppose. The two concepts are distinct. The characteristic of a conurbation (an internationally recognised geographical descriptive term) is the physical spreading together of originally different built-up areas. The characteristic of a "metropolitan area" (as I understand it, primarily a North American term) is a "zone of influence" over areas not necessarily physically contiguous, and/or an administrative area. All the examples cited in the proposal are in the U.S., which has a number of unique features which do not apply elsewhere, e.g. in Europe. Although there is obviously some overlap, the two concepts are distinct and require separate articles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. I agree with Ghmyrtle. Fingerpuppet (talk) 09:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support. I'd oppose since I've found different definitions for a conurbation, but the current does not differentiate it in any way from a metro area. Admiral Norton (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. The keyword in the definition is polycentric. Metropolitan areas aren't necesarily polycentric. Conurbations are a specific type of agglomeration, and not equivalent to the concept of 'metropolitan area', which is based on labour markets, etc., not on physical connectedness. - Aucitypops (talk) 01:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
[edit] British conurbations table It shows in the wrong section, don't know why, but it's kind of weird like this. Junuxx (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC) - Fixed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
|
