LARGEST CITY

Hokitika Guardian, 19 January 1931, Page 2

LARGEST CITY

NEW YORK SECURES TITLE

LONDON TAKES SECOND PLACE

Dr 'Walter La allow, an American census expoi L, woo liar, been to London

u) hiul a ...a.sis lor comparing ns population with New York s. has returned t«.> tlie United Slates to report that “theie will never be, within 20 miles of Charing Cios.s, a population as great as was enumerated this year within 19 miles of New York City Hall.” For “'Circled New York, ’ lie says, the 1930 Federal Censim figures will show a population of 9,900,000 whereas even within the hounds ol the liewly-estah fished London traffic area, “extending at times to nearly 30 miles of Charing Cross, the population in 1931 (when the next census is taken) is nut likely to exceed 8,500,000. Dr Laidlow makes this calculation on the basis of 7,861,130 as the estimated population of the Metropolitan district ill 1928. Ho thinks this will have risen to 8.039,000 in 1031, and than another 500,000 is to be added fot the belt between the Metropolitan a tea, aiid wliiit is limv known as the London traffic ttVeil,

According to Dr Raymond Lnwiti, technical adviser of the Greater London Regional Planning Committee, while Dr Laidlow’s figures under-esti-matc London’s growth, his conclusion is sound, and London can no longer claim to .lie the biggest city in the world from the point of view of population. Hitherto the comparison has lain between Metropolitan London and the City of New York but, says Dr Unwin, clearly thin is not a sound basis, and it would appear to be the desire of the United States Census authorities to correct it. For Dr I.aidlow’s “‘Circled New York” (552,259 acres) is practically the same area as that for which the population figures are given in the “Estimates of Population of the United States,” published by the Department of Commerce, on material supplied by the Census Office and adopted by. the various statistical •bureaux. In 1923 the population • of this'New York was 8,631,744; and Dr Laidlaw says that by now this will have grown to 9,900,000.

A QUESTION OF BOUNDARIES

To compare this with London, Dr Laidlaw takes the area which comes within the scope of the Greater London Regional Planning Committee, an area with a radius of 25 miles from Charing Cross (not “nearly 30”), and embracing places iso far afield as Gravesend, Hertford and Slough,

“Ft conies to this,” said Dr Unwin, “that New York lias already exceeded a population of 9,000,000, whereas we are just approaching it, Of course, arty urea you choose must be to some extent arbitrary, but Dr Laidluw’s comparison is the only fair one. When people think of London as the most populous city in the world they com pare in their mindn Metropolitan London, with a population of roughly 7, 500,C00, with New York City, which at its last census had 5,500,000 and now has something over 6,000,000. But if we take the population of New York City only we should compare itwith that of theL.O.C. area whose population is 4,500,000, and is declining . The only fair comparison is between Greater New York and that ol the London and Home counties Traffic Advisory Committee, which is now Greater London, an area of 1846 square miles, which certainly includes everything that can by any stretch be attributed to London.

“Dr Laidlaw’s figures, so far as we are concerned, are not quite accurate. So far from the population of the new Greater London not exceeding 8,500,000 in 1931, it has already exceeded that figure, being 8,747,113. By 1931 it will bo nearly as possible 9,000,000. Nevertheless, accepting his figures for the New York census this year, London has clearly been left behind, and his claim that London is the second city in the world, in point of population, can not be controverted.

LONDON “TOO BIG.” “But be assured,” remarked Dr. Unwin, “that New York is welcome to its record. I hope London will never seek to get it back, for it is already too big for any mass aggregation. We believe in a greater dispersion of the population rather than in a concentration of it, so that the population and the necessary open land can be kept in better relation the one to the other.”

Nevertheless, that New York .should have outstripped London, whether for good or ill. is surprising in view of London’s extraordinary manifestations of growth—its new towns that have sprung vip in places which only three or four years ago were supplying hay and milk, and the very marked immigration into London which has increased itis insurable ponulation by nearly 15 per cent, in seven years. And, indeed, Metropolitan London has grown from 7.480/201 in 1921, 4her«' was then no future for the new Greater London) to 7.864.130 in 1028. which represents an anniml increase of population' excess of hi'-G's over deaths'! has been roughly 47.000 a V°ar. Tb-u London has grown much more in the pp«t decade than in iV preceding ore. wlmu Os population increased by only 229,000.

FRINGE development. Where New York has scored, how

ever, is in the evenness of its growth.

It has continued to grow in its inner as well as in its outer circle, whereas the whole of London’s growth has been suburban.

“For twenty or thirty years up to 1921,” said Dr Unwin, “Metropolitan London was not retaining the whole of its natural increase ol population, and, from the point ol vieu of seliconu.ined unit, was, lar from increasing, actually diminishing. More people ware going out of London to liio than coming in. Now the process has been reversed, and since 1921 Greater London lias been absorbing the whole ol its natural increase plus an addition of immigrants numbering, sa.v, lb,w>L a year. But this increase is outside the London County Council area, which, in fact, is actually diminishing in numbers, and is exporting not only the whole of its natural increase but some more. It means that the outer periphery of London is absorbing the whole of the natural increase of Hie ( entral areas, plus some people who are moving out ‘from the centre, and plus an immigration ol 10,000 a ycai from the provine''is. 4he development is on the fringe.”

In contrast to this, the population of New York City itself has continued to advance since the last census, and that though the density of population is ill some places 640 to the acre, compared with a maximum in London (in Southwark) of 163 to the acre. In 1920 its population was 5,620,048 j in 1923 it was estimated at 6,017,702; and it mujst now exceed 6,100,000 Hit's it has continued to grow at the rate ol 50,000 a year.