Where does the London conurbation end?

[Sol]

I was going to put this here, but since it's a bit of a bigger question I figured I'd put it to the forum. That said, it certainly demonstrates severe ignorance.

I was looking at Google maps and noticed that the London area extends quite a bit beyond Greater London.



I knew that already of course, but I was struck by how far the built up areas to west of London especially are. It looks quasi-urbanized all the way out to Reading, Farnham, and Basingtoke. Is this places like Reading being swallowed up by The City a la Trenton or Danbury, or is it these areas being densely populated spots that just happen to be by London? Where would y'all draw the line of "London ends here?"

How does the Greenbelt relate to this?

Anyway, silly question, but it interested me.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

The expansion is real and will only accelerate thanks to the opening of the Elizabeth Line. Slough, in particular, deserves mention here. It’s been growing a lot over the last 20 years, and getting to it from southwest London can now be done (via public Transport) in 1/3-1/2 of the previous travel time.

[mileslunn]

UK is super dense so their definition of urban different than US.  If US definition used probably go out to Bedford, English Channel, Crawley, and Reading so over 15 million people.  But if US definition used most of UK would be part of a conurbation so European rules a bit stricter.  While not an EU member anymore, EU definition is continued built up with no more than 200m break excluding parks.  US by contrast just looks at each square mile and in central part must exceed 1,000 people per square mile while in suburbs it ends when population density falls below 500 people per square mile (which much of UK, even some rural areas are above).  Atlanta metro area which goes quite far out great example of this as see lots of green spaces in Atlanta suburban counties yet conurbation goes out to Forsyth and Cherokee counties.

So in summary, what you circle would be UK definition, but US would go a lot further out.

[Meclazine for Israel]

For those like me.

https://www.google.com/search?q=conurbation

- an extended urban area, typically consisting of several towns merging with the suburbs of a central city.

Example:

"the major conurbations of London and Birmingham"

10/10 for word choice.

[Silent Hunter]

That dotted line is the administrative boundary, just to be clear.

[oldtimer]

From a practical view the M25 ring road.

It forms a natural barrier.

[rc18]

The Office of National Statistics produces data and maps derived from the census that can be used to estimate conurbations.

If you are only interested in contiguously-developed land then the Built-up Area is a useful proxy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_London_Built-up_Area



But your question about whether these outer areas are functionally part of the conurbation implies the labour market is important. In that case a better measure is the Travel To Work Area. This is effectively mapping self-contained job markets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travel_to_work_area




So to answer the question, while the built up areas to the east have a common labour market with the rest of the conurbation, the built up areas to the west have their own self-contained labour markets. This is due to the towns to the west being far more affluent than those in the post-industrial east and correspondingly stronger local markets. While there are (or were, pre-COVID) plenty of commuters to London from the west, they also have strong local economies that allow them to act as separate employment clusters, so they weren't yet completely dominated.

These are using old stats though, eventually there will be updates from the 2021 census, but that will likely be difficult to compare wrt TTWAs because of COVID and increased WFH.

[Alcibiades]

So to answer the question, while the built up areas to the east have a common labour market with the rest of the conurbation, the built up areas to the west have their own self-contained labour markets. This is due to the towns to the west being far more affluent than those in the post-industrial east and correspondingly stronger local markets. While there are (or were, pre-COVID) plenty of commuters to London from the west, they also have strong local economies that allow them to act as separate employment clusters, so they weren't yet completely dominated.

Your point on affluence is definitely true for e.g. Reading, though much of the Travel to Work Area marked 'Slough and Heathrow' on the map -- which arises in large part from Heathrow Airport being an absolutely gigantic employer -- is pretty working class.

[rc18]

So to answer the question, while the built up areas to the east have a common labour market with the rest of the conurbation, the built up areas to the west have their own self-contained labour markets. This is due to the towns to the west being far more affluent than those in the post-industrial east and correspondingly stronger local markets. While there are (or were, pre-COVID) plenty of commuters to London from the west, they also have strong local economies that allow them to act as separate employment clusters, so they weren't yet completely dominated.

Your point on affluence is definitely true for e.g. Reading, though much of the Travel to Work Area marked 'Slough and Heathrow' on the map -- which arises in large part from Heathrow Airport being an absolutely gigantic employer -- is pretty working class.

I don't know what you mean by "working class". I wouldn't use the term as necessarily the opposite of affluent.

The parts of Greater London within "Slough and Heathrow" TTWA are largely Hounslow, Hillingdon and parts of Richmond.

These all have some of the highest median incomes outside the central core of Greater London.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1344681/london-weekly-wage-amount-by-borough/

They also have much higher rates of home ownership than the east. You may call them working class, but they are very affluent compared to most areas in the South East of England.

You may look down on them compared so some of the even more affluent parts of west London, but even Slough and Spelthorne have median incomes well above that of the eastern Greater London boroughs and especially the wider Thames Estuary beyond.

[Oryxslayer]

So to answer the question, while the built up areas to the east have a common labour market with the rest of the conurbation, the built up areas to the west have their own self-contained labour markets. This is due to the towns to the west being far more affluent than those in the post-industrial east and correspondingly stronger local markets. While there are (or were, pre-COVID) plenty of commuters to London from the west, they also have strong local economies that allow them to act as separate employment clusters, so they weren't yet completely dominated.

Your point on affluence is definitely true for e.g. Reading, though much of the Travel to Work Area marked 'Slough and Heathrow' on the map -- which arises in large part from Heathrow Airport being an absolutely gigantic employer -- is pretty working class.

I don't know what you mean by "working class". I wouldn't use the term as necessarily the opposite of affluent.

The parts of Greater London within "Slough and Heathrow" TTWA are largely Hounslow, Hillingdon and parts of Richmond.

These all have some of the highest median incomes outside the central core of Greater London.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1344681/london-weekly-wage-amount-by-borough/

They also have much higher home ownership than the east. You may call them working class, but they are affluent compared to most areas in the South East of England.

You may look down on them compared so some of the even more affluent parts of west London, but even Slough and Spelthorne have median incomes well above that of the eastern Greater London boroughs and especially the wider Thames Estuary beyond.

He probably meant the parts of each named area presently represented by Labour at most levels.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Based on occupational and housing statistics from the census, then it would be reasonable to describe Slough, Hayes (i.e. the southern third or so of the LB of Hillingdon: not the rest!), and the bulk of the LB of Hounslow as 'working class', especially given the economic structure of the region. They are, of course, part of a patchwork that also includes very affluent areas and broad swathes of very humdrum middle-to-lower middle class suburbia, such as that which is characteristic of the Spelthorne district (Staines and so on).

[Alcibiades]

I don't know what you mean by "working class". I wouldn't use the term as necessarily the opposite of affluent.

The parts of Greater London within "Slough and Heathrow" TTWA are largely Hounslow, Hillingdon and parts of Richmond.

These all have some of the highest median incomes outside the central core of Greater London.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1344681/london-weekly-wage-amount-by-borough/

They also have much higher rates of home ownership than the east. You may call them working class, but they are very affluent compared to most areas in the South East of England.

You may look down on them compared so some of the even more affluent parts of west London, but even Slough and Spelthorne have median incomes well above that of the eastern Greater London boroughs and especially the wider Thames Estuary beyond.

As Al says, I largely had in mind Slough and Hayes and Harrington. Obviously Richmond, Esher, Uxbridge etc. are not very working-class areas. My point here was just that that TTWA would not exist were it not for Heathrow, which — while I by no means am trying to deny is a significant boon to its area’s economy — provides work in occupations which for the most part would be considered ‘working class’. It doesn’t necessarily make sense to lump it in as part of the same phenomenon as the more white-collar economic centres around London such as Reading.

[Coldstream]

Swindon.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

To answer the question, the first thing to note is that 'Greater London' is a slightly misleading name: the 'Greater' in the name indicates that the area covered is larger than the sadly abolished London County Council, not that it covers the entire metropolitan region, or even conurbation. It never did: most of London's true outer suburbs were able to avoid their recommended inclusion in the area covered by the Greater London Council when the ill-fated reforms of London government were implemented in the mid 1960s.

I would then make a distinction between the conurbation and the metropolitan area. The conurbation is still huge, of course: realistically we have to say that it extends about as far as Southend, Harlow, St Albans, Maidenhead, Woking, Reigate, and Gravesend. In a few places it is a little tricky to work out, and, of course, somewhere can be part of a conurbation without really being part of the city itself: that would be a different question again. The metropolitan region is even larger and, realistically, includes the bulk of the South East, by which I mean the usual definition of the term not the 'official' one (i.e. I am absolutely thinking of Essex and Herts. as well). The Chilterns probably work as a reasonable boundary to the North West, at least.

[CumbrianLefty]

To answer the question, the first thing to note is that 'Greater London' is a slightly misleading name: the 'Greater' in the name indicates that the area covered is larger than the sadly abolished London County Council, not that it covers the entire metropolitan region, or even conurbation. It never did: most of London's true outer suburbs were able to avoid their recommended inclusion in the area covered by the Greater London Council when the ill-fated reforms of London government were implemented in the mid 1960s.

For those who don't know, places such as Epsom/Cheshunt/Dartford were originally intended as part of the new 1960s Greater London - but widespread local opposition forced a rethink.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

How does the Greenbelt relate to this?

Broadly speaking, it has the effect of preventing parts of the metropolitan region from becoming part of the conurbation, though it does also include a lot of territory where that has already occurred (and often the Green Belt designation postdated that happening).

[EastAnglianLefty]

I don't know what you mean by "working class". I wouldn't use the term as necessarily the opposite of affluent.

The parts of Greater London within "Slough and Heathrow" TTWA are largely Hounslow, Hillingdon and parts of Richmond.

These all have some of the highest median incomes outside the central core of Greater London.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1344681/london-weekly-wage-amount-by-borough/

They also have much higher rates of home ownership than the east. You may call them working class, but they are very affluent compared to most areas in the South East of England.

You may look down on them compared so some of the even more affluent parts of west London, but even Slough and Spelthorne have median incomes well above that of the eastern Greater London boroughs and especially the wider Thames Estuary beyond.

As Al says, I largely had in mind Slough and Hayes and Harrington. Obviously Richmond, Esher, Uxbridge etc. are not very working-class areas. My point here was just that that TTWA would not exist were it not for Heathrow, which — while I by no means am trying to deny is a significant boon to its area’s economy — provides work in occupations which for the most part would be considered ‘working class’. It doesn’t necessarily make sense to lump it in as part of the same phenomenon as the more white-collar economic centres around London such as Reading.

It's also worth noting that there is a lot of employment linked to airports which is definitely working-class but is also quite well-paid. It's not just a measurement of income.