TWO GREAT CITIES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20722, 15 November 1930, Page 2 (Supplement)

TWO GREAT CITIES.

LONDON AND NEW YORK. POPULATIONS COMPARED. ANOTHER AMERICAN RECORD. Dr. Walter Laidlaw, an American census expert, who has visited London to find a basis for comparing its population with New York's, has returned to Ihe United Slates to report that " thero will never he, within 20 miles of Charing Cross, a population as great as was enumerated this year within 19 miles of New York City Ilall."

For " Circled New York," Dr. Laidlaw says, tho 1930 Federal Census figuies will show a population of 9,900,000, whereas, even within the bounds of tho newly-established London traflic area, "extending at times to nearly 30 miles of Charing Cross, the population in 1931, when the next census is taken, is not likely to exceed 8,500.000."

Dr. Laidlaw makes his calculation on tho basis of 7,864,130 as tho estimated population of tlie Metropolitan district in 1928. He thinks this will have risen to 8.000,000 in 1931, and that another 500,000 is to bo added for the bolt between the Metropolitan area and what is now known as the London traflic area.

According to Dr. Raymond Uiiwin, technical adviser of tho Greater London

Regional. Planning Committee, while Dr. Laidlaw's figures underestimate London's growth, his conclusion is sound, and London can 110 longer claim to be 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 this is not a sound basis, and it would appear to be the desire of the United States Census authorities to correct it. Dr. Laidlaw's " Circled New York." comprising 552.259 acres, is practically the same area as that for which the population figures arc given in the "Estimates of Population of the United States," published bv the Department of Commerce, on material supplied by the Census Oflice, and adopted by the various statistical bureaux. In 1923 the population of this New York was 8.631,744; and Dr. Laid law says that by now this will have grown to 9,900.000. A Question of Boundaries.

To compare this with London Dr. Laidlaw takes (he area which comes within the scope of tiie Greater London Regional Planning Committee, an area with a radius of 25 miles from Charing Cross — not "nearly 30"—and embracing plrtces so far afield as Gravesend, Hertford and Slough.

" It comes to this," said Dr. Unwin, " that New York has already exceeded a population of 9,000,000 whereas we are just approaching it. Of course, any area you choose must be to some extent arbitrary, but Dr. Laidlaw's comparison is the only fair one. When people think of London as the most populous city in the world, they compare in their minds Metropolitan London, with a population of roughly 7.500.000, 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 it with that of the London County Council area, whose population is 4,500,000, and is declining. The only fair comparison is between Greater New i ork and the area of the London and Home Counties Trnflic Advisory Committee, wlii'-h is now Greater London, an area of 1846 square miles, which certainly includes everything that can by any stretch be attributed to London. London " Already Too Big." " Dr. Laidlaw's figures, so far as we arc 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 8.747,143. By 1931 it will be as 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, m point of population, cannot be controverted."

" But lie assured,' remarked Dr. Unwin, " that New York is welcome (o its record. I liopo London will never seek to it back, for it is already too l.iig 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 bo kept in better relation the 0110 to the other.