"Brimstone" wrote in message
...

"Stephen Osborn" wrote in message
...

I live in the Borough of Lewisham but the boundary with Bromley is no
more
than 200 yds away and there will be, of course, analagous places close
to
Bexley but clearly in London.

If I cross the boundary into Bromley I do not see any material
difference,
not immediately and not for many miles. In broad terms the centre of
Bromley and the center of Lewisham are very similar (and very similar to
many other 'town' centres, but that is a different topic).

London used to be a tiny area on the north bank of Thames and has
gradually
grown. It seems to me that where there is a continuous built up area
there
is one city (or Metropolitan Area if you want). By that standard,
Bexley,
Bromley, Croydon etc are already part London and have been for many
years.

People of the Black Country would seriously disagree with you as would the
people of Salford.



As would Nick no doubt. I don't agree.

De facto a continuous built up area is a single _something_, the only
question is what. The phrase Metropolitan Area is used because these
somethings are relatively new and contain a number of things already called
cities.
--
regards

Stephen

"Stephen Osborn" wrote in message
...

De facto a continuous built up area is a single
_something_, the only question is what. The
phrase Metropolitan Area is used because these
somethings are relatively new and contain a
number of things already called cities.

Metropolis means *capital* city...

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

John Rowland wrote:

Metropolis means *capital* city...

At least that's one of the definitions of the word.
--
Michael Hoffman

In article , John Rowland
wrote:
"Stephen Osborn" wrote in message
...

De facto a continuous built up area is a single
_something_, the only question is what. The
phrase Metropolitan Area is used because these
somethings are relatively new and contain a
number of things already called cities.

Metropolis means *capital* city...

Does it?

In an act of great smallness Mrs Thatcher abolished the GLC, just to unseat
Ken Livingstone, and all the other "metropolitan" counties of England too,
to make it seem less obvious. The London metropolitan county was restored but
not the others. Tyne and Wear, Mersey, etc ... these are just strings of
villages in the eyes of London, they can't be given the status of
"metropolitan" and so the two meanings of "metropolitan" were used
to the advantage of London and the disadvantage of the rest of the
country. Not for the first time!


Michael Bell

--

Stephen Osborn wrote:

De facto a continuous built up area is a single _something_, the only
question is what. The phrase Metropolitan Area is used because these
somethings are relatively new and contain a number of things already called
cities.

The word you're looking for is conurbation. Or if it contains a number
of things already called cities, it's a megalopolis.

Aidan Stanger wrote:
Stephen Osborn wrote:

De facto a continuous built up area is a single _something_, the only
question is what. The phrase Metropolitan Area is used because these
somethings are relatively new and contain a number of things already
called cities.

The word you're looking for is conurbation. Or if it contains a number
of things already called cities, it's a megalopolis.

When I did my Human Geography back in the late 70's, a megalopolis was used
to describe where two 'metropolises' merge together rather than just an
aggregation of cities

ISTR the classical examples quoted were Minneapolis-St Paul as an
aggregation and the Boston-Washington corridor (or 'BosWash' - bleaugh!) as
a megalopolis