This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
Here is a reference for the Economy section from U.S Army Corps of Engineers (January 2009).Great Lakes Navigation System: Economic Strength to the Nation. The population table in the present article is fine and it should stick with CSA/CMA statistics. Some were objecting to adding flags. Also per capita statistics are distorted comparisons and should not be included, for example, they are not reflective of lower cost of living advantages in areas with lower GDP. We can update 2010 populations when they are released, but no need to keep changing the population table format. GDP data may as well be simplified as entire state or province instead since the major areas account for most of it. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 18:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was working on this table long before you even began yours. Yes, I did stop for a while to catch up with my schoolwork but I have been working on it since February 26, 2011. I can easily eliminate GDP per Capita, no problem although in my opinion they provide better insight on the quality of life; but I am only 15 years old so alright, whatever you say buddy, you probably know best. I am using statistics, it is in fact your table and the previous in which the numbers make no sense. I am getting my information straight of the Wikipedia Article which in turn gets its information from the official Census Bureau site. As for Canadian cities, I am currently getting my numbers from the official site too. I have not yet began GPD since I just added it last night.ThisguyYEAH (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its a megalopolis, not necessary to itemize numbers for every smaller area. Simply group them with the larger CMA/CSA. Numerical growth in the present article is preferable to percent growth, since these are only estimates if that helps. If we have missed a Canadian area let's see where it can be added. We may be able to add GDPs to come up with a regional GDP for an area or simply list the GDP for the state or province separately, since the CMA/CSA accounts for most of it anyway. Started the economy section. A suggestion would be to take the table we have in the article and add enhancements so we can assist, rather than attempting to re-do it all. Thanks.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Windsor" and "Ste-Catherines--Niagara" seem wrong. Considering how other areas are dealt with, this should be "Detroit-Windsor" and "Buffalo-St.Catherines" respectively. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current divisions into "Windsor" and "Detriot," and "Ste-Catherines--Niagara" and "Buffalo" are more proper than the proposed unions. I think it's reasonable to claim that national boundaries cause contiguous constituent cities, such as Detroit and Windsor, to function as independent subunits of the trans-national megalopolis. 96.47.114.150 (talk) 06:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Toronto ? I don't think it has anything to do with Toronto. Montreal is its own city and does not rely on Toronto for anything. Toronto is but a small part of the Great Lakes Megalopolis. It's important to remember that the supplied map by America 2050 project is only one theory of what constitutes the Great Lakes Megalopolis. UrbanNerd (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it relied on it for anything (whatever that means). All these cities are their own city. The urban development along the St Lawrence is what would make it a connected city. Also, for the OP, note many of the cities are not on the Great Lakes. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any source in the article that firmly places Montral in the Great Lakers Megapolis? I would agree Montreal is very much apart of the quebec city-windsor corridor considered it's own megalopolis however i don't see any evidence it is also part of the great lakers megalopolis. Otherwise you could argue any city in the qubec-city windsor coridor would likewise be part of the great lakes. I don't think hunches or assumptions as to how montreal is connected to the region would be enough to verify it's place in the article. Third party sources would be needed. Wikispeaks (talk) 10:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Great Lakes - St. Lawrence is the original reason for including the cities from Windsor to Montreal in the Great Lakes Megalopolis [1]. But what is the basis for your claim that Montreal to Windsor is a "separate" megalopolis? If that is truly a different scholarly conception, then an article or subsection of this article could be created. In fact, there is already one on Quebec City–Windsor CorridorAlanscottwalker (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience as a citizen of the Great Lakes megalopolis, it functions more like a series of overlapping and interconnecting megastructures, which I'll call hubs. The Montreal-Windsor corridor might be one of those megastructures (the Canadian hub). The Windsor-Detroit-Indianapolis-Pittsburgh region is the Ohio hub, the Detroit-Indianapolis-Milwaukee-QuadCities region is the Chicago hub, and the Minneapolis-QuadCities-St.Louis-Milwaukee region is the Plains and UpperMidwest hub.
Inclusion of Montreal represents the thought of those who include the entire Canadian belt as a constituent and distinct hub within the larger Great Lakes megalopolis. Apart from this, cities like Windsor might still be included as peripheral cities of the Ohio hub. Of course, I know nothing about Canada; I'm just trying to give a vocabulary which expresses the notion that if the Montreal and Toronto portions of the Canadian belt are distinct entities of their own, then inclusion of a Canadian hub of the Great Lakes megalopolis should not extend said hub past the Toronto portion of the belt. Perhaps one could postulate that Toronto is both a hub of the Great Lakes megalopolis and part of a larger, independent Canadian megalopolis, the way Houston is part of both the Gulf Coast and the Texas Triangle simultaneously.
In any case, the real question is, "how connected are Toronto and Montreal?" -- 96.47.114.150 (talk) 06:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC) Anonymous[reply]
Just curious, given the idea that a megalopolis is essentially constructed of (relatively) geographically contiguous population centres, how is Kansas City considered part, while Montreal and Quebec aren't? I'm curious as to whether there is a document(s) that specifically explains this, or is it an opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesphieffer (talk • contribs) 05:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Toronto and Montréal are very well-connected: the Highway 401-Quebec Autoroute 20|Autoroute 20]] is one of the busiest road corridors in North America, and the Via Rail Corridor services accounted for 67% of the company's revenue in 2009. Montréal makes far more sense as a part of this Megalopolis than a large amount of the US Cities (Kansas City?!). As a lifelong resident of the Toronto region, I assure, Montréal is a vital part of the Canadian component of the Great Lakes Megalopolis. Virtually all maritime traffic moving between the Great Lakes and the Atlantic Ocean must pass through Montréal (except historically through the Erie Canal), fundamentally connecting it with the economies of the region; it is one of Canada's most important port cities, and was formerly a larger economic power than Toronto. AllTheTrains (talk) , 01:22 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I too am skeptical of Montreal's inclusion, since it's not part of the the map on this page. I've added a "needs citation" template in the list. --Albany NY (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Greater Toronto Area and Chicagoland population/increase is incorrect
How, HOW, is Chicagos CSA population projected to grow 1.1 million if it's annual growth rate is around 0.60%?! Toronto's growth rate is 9-10% yet it is only slightly listed higher at 1.6 million...This makes no sense
The CSA is 9.7 million now, 0.6% growth rate a year is around 55-60k. This means that in 2025 the population will be around 10.3 million. That is about a half a million gain, not the astronomical 1.1 million that this page is stating. The total percent increase is around 6-7%.
Now, onto Toronto. I found this chart from Stats Canada with the population and growth rates for Toronto. The 2025 GTA population is expected to reach 8.4 million. That's 2.7 million more that right now, more than a million higher than this chart states. The projected increase is around 50%, and was released from Stats Canada that the Greater Toronto Area's population is increasing at around 225000+ a year.
As you can see, this chart seems to be doubling Chicago's metropolitan area's increase and halving Toronto's. I'm not even going to get into Detroit's 16% increase as it is losing 0.2% a year. Technically, this table is saying that Chicagoland, a city that has been in a constant decline for 60 years, is supposed to gain more people within the next 12 years than the NYC Metro and LA Metro. This page at the moment is a joke.
I would just suggest you go slow in updating the table and make sure you are comparing like things across all entries. And that your sources are widely relied on and fairly represented (per WP:NPOV). Your comment, however, seems a little agenda driven, as its doubtful that whoever made the table had ill-intent. But as the table is past dated, there is little reason not to update it appropriately. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Updated the page tables to the proper population estimates.. If anybody is wondering why the references were not put, it is because the pages for some reason are blocked. The references are on the history page and below this text. The CMA page is a PDF.
I removed a sentence from the lead that seemed confusingly worded (and which also referenced Houston for reasons I don't quite understand). I replaced it with a broader claim about the relationship between the Rust Belt and the megalopolis. Clearly there is extensive overlap, but there are some metros that are generally considered part of one but not the other. My aim was to introduce the reader to the idea that there is an important connection between these two concepts/regions and then maybe we can address some of the ongoing debate and definitional nuances in the body (with respect both to the Rust Belt connection and also the basic definition of the megalopolis itself). For example, several entries in the table are flagged as dubious, but maybe we can say more in the article about the extent of this debate. Any ideas on the best way to work this in? As part of the history section, or as a separate section about "disputed metros"? Maybe I'll attempt something, but I'd love to get some ideas about how we can improve the narrative aspects of this article. Wantonlife (talk) 02:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the inclusion of Toronto and other Golden Horseshoe Canadian lands, I defer to more geographically-minded individuals than I to assess whether this is an accurate statement.Eunomiac (talk) 10:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link on Great Lakes Megalopolis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 2 external links on Great Lakes Megalopolis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 2 external links on Great Lakes Megalopolis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
It's odd to call a region with so much rural land a "megalopolis". Does this page really provide adequate evidence that this concept is widely accepted in the geographical community?128.187.112.7 (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What's your question? Generally something is called something because that's what people call it. If this thing was called "Hey!" that's what we would call it, but this thing is called, "Great Lakes Megalopolis" [2] and it's not written for one "community", its written for the general public. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The notion that this area is a megalopolis is absurd. There just isn't enough connectivity. The whole thing is just an imaginary notion by those who are envious of the Eastern Megalopolis. This article should be deleted. 136.181.195.29 (talk) 12:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As usual with population comparisons between Canadian and U.S. cities apples and oranges are being compared. Using American methodology (with land area and commuting patterns) the Toronto region is at least 7 million and could be considered a little over 9 million. Editor32653 (talk) 01:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor32653 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These two Missouri metros should not be listed in as urban centers that are part of the Great Lakes Megalopolis. Missouri and mostly assuredly Kansas as the western portion of the KC Metro are several hundred miles away from the Great Lakes. Doneproper (talk) 12:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. While you and I might disagree with sources and have our own ideas about it (See:WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR) those are included because of what academics do in writing on the topic, see map at right. And even though there is distance as you say, they are still in fact connected, including notably by navigable water. The same is true for Montreal, Quebec City, but we don't write articles based on what we think, we survey the sources and say what they say and when there are varying definitions in the sources, we say that. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
rather than the order in the article now "...includes Chicago, Milwaukee, Grand Rapids, South Bend, Detroit, Cleveland, Toledo, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Rochester, Hamilton, Toronto and metropolitan areas between these..." which isn't in W-E nor size order, it's rather random...
It doesn't hit every city in the megalopolis but that's a good west to east path through many. Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c23:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Was comparing the cities listed on this page to the cities listed for the megalopolis on the article for all megaregions of the US. The first one listed is Barrie, which has a population significantly over 100,000 and yet is not included among the cities listed on this page. Is there a reason it's not here? Should it, and potentially others, be added? Qster2323 (talk)
I think it's possible some of the other population numbers are similarly out of date but wanted to make sure I wasn't making any mistakes with this modification.
I came to quickly see what land area this megalopolis covers and which urban areas. A map best the to of the page would have helped greatly but I couldn't find one. Dus somebody have one, it the skills to create one? — SkyLined (talk)13:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanna figure this out; when I sort the land area for major cities, Ottawa appears first alongside the smallest cities by area, rather than with the largest. Is there any solution to this, because I can't seem to find one? –Piranha249(Discuss with me)17:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I completed an interactive map of the megaregion. The map is literally assembled county by county (300+ counties), so it takes a while to download if you want to work with it. Canadian areas were assembled on the county and region level, not using municipalities, for convenience. Speaking of Canada, I ended the Canadian portion just east of Toronto following the RPA map, whereas the text of the article here includes Ottawa, Montreal, and Quebec City--the entirety of the Windsor-Quebec City corridor. Also noteworthy is how many metros are on the legend, perhaps it got a little out of control by listing every 1,000,000+ metropolitan area in the megaregion. Perhaps I should go with a four color map one for all metros 0-1m, another for 1m to 3m, and one for 3m to 5m, and then one final for 5m plus? StillWatchesCartoons (talk) 22:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I truly mean no offense to the many editors who have clearly put hard work into this article. But after looking at the sources and doing some research, I wonder if we maybe need to take a step back and ask ourselves if there really is such a thing as the Great Lakes Megalopolis. Because the more I look at the sources, the more I think this article is a huge pile of WP:SYNTH with some attractive photos and statistics propping it up.
First of all, the only references that actually describe a Great Lakes Megalopolis as a subject are References 2 through 6 (refs. 11 and 20 are the same as ref. 3)...all the other references are for statistics. But these sources are not all talking about the same thing, and not all are appropriate, or even reliable. Ref. 2 is World Atlas, a site that appears professional and has a fact-checking policy, but the text of their article seems like a condensed version of the WP article (no sources are cited). Ref. 3 is to the America 2050 report by the Regional Plan Association, but this group never uses the term "Great Lakes Megalopolis" (they say "megaregion") and are focused pretty narrowly on transportation. Ref. 4 is pure "flying cars and jetpacks for everyone!"-type speculation from 1967, and again never uses the term. Ref. 5 is an extremely short blurb on a report C.A. Doxiadis issued on urban planning in Detroit in 1966, and Ref. 6 is Doxiadis himself. Doxiadis does use the term extensively: He published a whole paper on the subject in 1968 (the link is to a reprint from his journal Ekistics). But I can only find 9 citations to that paper in the Web of Science, and most are to unrelated urban planning studies from China (one is to a dissertation). Other than these, I can't find anything online about a "Great Lakes Megalopolis" that isn't a WP mirror or unreliable (e.g. Reddit).
So, the "Great Lakes Megalopolis" appears to have been conjured up by one individual, C. A. Doxiadis, and does not appear especially influential in the literature. And a couple of other organizations separately came up with similar ideas but for different purposes, and never use the term. I would argue that is insufficient grounds for notability, and to present them all as a single unified topic is SYNTH.
Second of all, the concept just doesn't stand up to ordinary scrutiny. Try and tell me with a straight face that Blissfield, Michigan is part of a "megalopolis", but there it is, right in the heart of the golden sprawl on the America 2050 map. That may be WP:OR, but if few people in the region consider themselves part of a well-defined continuous conurbation, it should give us pause.
I'd rather work this out here than take the article to AfD. I think the article needs a truly massive improvement in sourcing at the very least, and maybe some trimming to make it clear that this is Doxiadis' concept and not something with wide recognition. I can do some of that myself but frankly this article needs WP:TNT. Sorry for the wall of text. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
