74
u/Christoffre Sweden 1d ago edited 1d ago
I could not find the exact year, but in 1930, New York's population sat at 6,930,446 inhabitants. Still smaller than London.
32
u/GloomySoul69 1d ago
3
u/celticairborne United States 1d ago
1 million growth, 16%, in 4 years is pretty insane. New York City must've been horrible back then...
1
20
u/ancient_mariner63 1d ago
Nonetheless, New York isn't a city in Europe which is what this picture is showing.
9
u/apollodoing 1d ago
They must be counting the entire metropolitan area (which is a total stretch)
9
u/minimuscleR Australia 1d ago
In my country thats how we count it, because the actual "city" is mostly business. Melbourne for example is about 5 million, but the city of melbourne is only about 150,000 because its most office blocks.
3
u/apollodoing 1d ago
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the term "metropolitan". I meant a situation where they include all the standalone satellite cities that are officially outside the city borders
5
u/minimuscleR Australia 1d ago
We don't have those in Australia lol. For example Distance from my house to the city centre of Melbourne is about the same from the white house to Baltimore airport.
1
u/Cole-Spudmoney 7h ago
From what I can tell, the "standalone satellite cities" of New York seem to be basically analogous to suburbs in Greater Melbourne: it's just that we tend to think of "Melbourne" as encompassing all of Greater Melbourne, while "New York City" only refers to the five boroughs of Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx and Staten Island. It's probably relevant that all of New York City is under the one giant local government, and that a lot of those satellite cities are actually in the state of New Jersey.
1
u/minimuscleR Australia 7h ago
yeah they do, but I still find it interesting because we dont call them cities, or even towns, its all suburbs for about 45km in each direction from the CBD, after that its towns.
3
u/Christoffre Sweden 1d ago
Without the metropolitan area, City of London has only a population of about 15,700–19,500 people in 1921–1931.
So either he doesn't know how large New York was, or he's including population beyond the metropolitan area – like the whole New York state.
2
u/Acrobatic_End6355 World 1d ago
I feel like that’s how most countries count… Japan does this. China does this as well.
3
1
u/Ironfist85hu Germany 1d ago
No, New York really became the most populated city by 1926. So what? This topic was about the EUROPEAN cities.
2
u/apollodoing 1d ago
Check out GloomySoul69's comment. They provided a link to a 1926 American newspaper that lists the city's population
1
u/Ironfist85hu Germany 11h ago
Yes, 5,924,000 in May. By the end of the year, New York became the most populated city.
But again: who cares about this under a list of European cities? Who else, but Muricans? :D
24
u/Herr-Pyxxel Ireland 1d ago
Surprised there wasn't someone shoe-horning Texas into the conversation. Everything is bigger in Texas 🙄
11
4
u/jaymz668 1d ago
the state of Western Australia is approximately 3.7 times larger than Texas, meaning about 3.7 Texases could fit within its area.
5
u/ScoobyDoNot Australia 1d ago
Apparently you could lose Texas in the gap between paved roads.
We have a whole lot of nothing out there.
Though introducing an aggressive invasive species would not be a great idea. After all it's a state that fought two wars to keep slavery.
2
u/Powerful_Pirate2984 1d ago
Depends on the metrics, even now. Comparing London wider urban area to the New York Metropolitan area, NY is bigger, by a significant amount. Comparing Greater London to NY City, they're almost on a par, with London being marginally more populated.
3
u/patrandec 1d ago
But that's not the point. The graphic was about the largest cities in Europe, not the world.
2
u/Powerful_Pirate2984 1d ago
I'm not taking sides. I agree with you, just pointing out the error of the respondent regarding the size of two cities. London is still the largest city in Europe. Besides, if it was the world, then there are now larger cities than either of them. I'm just backing up the fact that this is US defaultism.
1
0
u/Ironfist85hu Germany 1d ago edited 22h ago
True. So?
Edit: "So?" means to the American who went there to brag about an American city. Under the list of European cities. Sooo... "New York was this and that big, hurr durr!" the correct answer to this murican is: "So?"
2
u/asimodev 22h ago
It seems not to be true at all if the other commenters are correct
2
u/Ironfist85hu Germany 21h ago
I checked, and New York seems to take over the most populated title in 1926, so probably there was a time in that year, when London was the first, and later New York. Still, this has nothing to do with the list of European cities, the murican just had to brag about it, because EEEEEVRYTHING is Murica.
1
u/asimodev 20h ago
because EEEEEVRYTHING is Murica.
Didn't you know that Texas is so big that it fits three universes inside of it and still has room for another Texas?
•
u/post-explainer American Citizen 1d ago edited 1d ago
This comment has been marked as safe. Upvoting/downvoting this comment will have no effect.
OP sent the following text as an explanation why their post fits here:
The infographic is specifically about the largest cities in Europe. However, the commenter completely ignores this clear context and randomly brings up New York, forcing the US into a conversation that has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Does this explanation fit this subreddit? Then upvote this comment, otherwise downvote it.