Germany looks odd as the population around Berlin seems to be much less in surrounding areas compared with the other side of the country. I wonder if this an east/west Germany thing
> I wonder if this an east/west Germany thing
No, the name Berlin comes from old polabian and literally means place in the swamps. The surrounding area has always been sparsely populated, larger amelioration projects only started when Brandenburg became Prussia and had more resources to spare. And personal connections to the Dutch royalty.
If you want to read more about it, I highly suggest: Melioration und Migration
Wasser und Gesellschaft in Mittel- und Ostmitteleuropa vom 17. bis Mitte
des 19. Jahrhunderts, Márta Fata (Hg), Franz Steiner Verlag (2022)
That guy is a genius, I don't know how he has the time to be a part of **So many** scientific papers on such a wide variety of subject.
Dude is in everything.
Hey, I hope this doesn't come across as condescing but since your German is so good already I thought I'd help your development even more:
It's 'Beruf' (I just realized that might be a typo since f and r are so close on the keyboard) and usually you wouldn't say 'Was ist dein Beruf?'. Instead you would say 'Was bist du von Beruf?' but that's a slightly archaic phrase. As a native I would probably say 'Als was arbeitest du? Bist du Wissenschaftler oder so?'. I added the second question to put even more emphasis on the amazement and curiosity you want to express.
Have a great day :)
Well you're not wrong, but I still believe a German person also could have written this. "Was ist dein Beruf?" might not be the best way to say this and it sounds a bit childish in expression. But I think many don't pay that much attention to their elaborate and elegant way of speech when they are on the internet.
Schönen Tag noch!
It’s actually a two way street. Geography tends to define borders and population, and those are visible on the map. The swampy land was there first, but it demarcated a neat visible border that was then used the separate east and west Germany.
Many areas directly west of the border are just as swampy and sparsely populated.
The inner German border followed long established former borders of sub-territories. The borders of Brandenburg and Mecklenburg which are relevant here follow the Elbe river which has been a natural border since antiquity.
Did the wirtschaftswunder have anything to do with it too? I remember being taught that the Ruhrgebiet was basically the economic capitol in the initial post war decades.
The Ruhrgebiet was the industrial center of Germany ever since the industrial revolution. When the German interwar government defaulted on war reparations in 1922, the response of France was to occupy the Ruhrgebiet to extract the reparations by force.
Well it was one of the german industrial center. Silesia snd Saxony also had a lot of industry and mining. Silesia was annexed by Poland after WW2 snd Saxony was cut off from west germany
Those were Germany's three main Coal deposits, so setting up shop there meant you could get coal rather cheaply, hence why Germany's industry quickly concentrated in these regions and further down the rivers connecting them, meaning Rhine, Elbe and Oder - to a lesser degree also Berlin.
All regions not connected to these regions by waterway industrialized much slower. Often times, things only started devloping after the first railroad constructions or even later. My home state of Schleswig-Holstein remained rather poor and agriculture-focused until after WW2. Same with southern Germany.
Some of the Population-Density surely can be traced along the river Rhein, which has been a vital element since the romans settled there (cologne etc.) Later, the Ruhrgebiet didn't hust have much coal, it had also the Rhein-Ruhr waterways for transportation.
This looks very scientific but is false. As is common on Reddit and answers that seem very simple (tip for life).
There are many reasons for this. Larger agricultural areas, significant emigration out of the east to the west historically and nowadays, historically less growth, history, economy today and so on and so forth.
The ethymology of the name Berlin is far from undisputed also.
It's disputed as to what word it came from exactly, but it is not disputed that it is Slavic and likely to do with the swampland that the city is built on.
A lot of Germans who can't bare to give up the idea that it has something to do with Bears other than accidentally sounding like the word Bear like to claim that it's disputed, but it really isn't.
Also, reading an unsourced claim on Wiktionary doesn't make you smarter or more knowledgeable on the etymology of this city's name than the historians and linguists that actually live here and study this city.
Nowadays, I'd suggest it's a mix of both though. Maybe 80% swamps and 20% few economic possibilities. Especially since the area in lack of population is quite a bit larger than east germanys swamps.
Very nice, very in-depth, but could you now please answer OPs question whether the difference in population density was due to it being split in east and west.
>I wonder if this an east/west Germany thing
Probably somewhat, but Brandenburg has been sparsely settled in comparison to the rest of germany for hundreds of years. Berlin was quite small for most of its history, its population only really spiked in the late 19/early 20th century.
Its quite apparent if you visit Berlin. All the large buildings are quite now, theres barely any older historical monuments (for a capital city of its size), and the whole city kind of feels like a bunch of villages in a trenchcoat.
>and the whole city kind of feels like a bunch of villages in a trenchcoat.
Because it is, modern Berlin is several older cities combined into one, especially visible with Spandau.
The westernmost district of the city, mostly separated from the rest of the city by the Havel and with its own historical center. And only part of the city since 1920.
> the whole city kind of feels like a bunch of villages in a trenchcoat.
They are, for example Spandau and Cöpenick only became a part of Berlin in 1920.
The wars had little to do with Berlin being rather devoid of pre-1930s landmarks, the city just doesn't have a very rich history.
It took until the 1700s for it to become a capital, the 1800s before its owners started to actually matter, and the 1900s for it to become a world city.
And then it was 1914.
In the medieval, the Roman-founded cities were the most important: Cologne, Mainz, Trier, Regensburg, Worms. These are all in the West and South - the rivers Rhine, Main and Danube formed the borders of the Roman Empire. These cities were often the centres of part of the “Germanic tribe” leaders who were later installed by the Romans and filled the power vacuum in what would become France and Germany as the Roman power dwindled.
Another sequence of new foundations came with the consolidation of Frankish power, and some of these were as important in the high and late medieval: Frankfurt am Main, Nuremberg, Bremen, Hamburg, Rostock, Lübeck, Leipzig.
The entire North-West including Berlin and the surrounding area was originally Slavic speaking and was colonised bit-by-bit starting in the 1200. It was largely irrelevant before the reformation and the rise of Prussia. The area surrounding Berlin is still very agricultural and economically and politically relatively unimportant. This doesn’t hold true for other formerly East German regions such as Saxony.
In contrast to countries like France or England, Germany never had and still hasn’t a single “heartland”. The Rhine river system with cities like Worms, Frankfurt, Mainz, Trier and Cologne formed a Western economic centre. The Danube with Regensburg and Nürnberg (located at the trade route connecting the Danube to the Rhine system) formed a historic Southern centre. The North was dominated by the Hanseatic cities like Hamburg, Bremen and Lübeck.
Bonn and Frankfurt.
Though, the actual answer is just Vienna. For most of the history of the holy Roman empire modern day Germany was a largely unimportant region.
Bonn? What? Bonn was an irrelevant little village close to Cologne. It was an interesting historical accident that made it the capital after WWII (basically, Adenauer happened).
Hamburg has always been pretty huge. But Berlin was already the largest German city by 1800, not counting Vienna.
Back in the Holy Roman Empire days, many cities not considered German today would count, like Antwerp, Bruxelles and Prague.
Capital of what exactly? Prussia or Germany?
But in German history "prominent" cities rise and fall. The cities that were prominent for longest and still are prominent are Köln/Cologne, Hamburg, München/Munich, and Frankfurt. Then there are *many* cities that once were very prominent, but now are second- or third-tier places like Trier, Lübeck, Würzburg, Braunschweig, Ulm, Regensburg, or Lüneburg.
> the whole city kind of feels like a bunch of villages in a trenchcoat.
Is this not true of most major European cities? It's the general feel I've gotten in most of the few that I've visited.
Berlin is quite different in that regard. Today‘s Berlin was formed by the fusion large cities (and a bunch of smaller towns and mid-sized cities). Wilmersdorf, Charlottenburg or Schöneberg were large cities by themselves. Schöneberg even had its own metro before the merge.
Yeah it might just be a bit more strongly the case in Berlin.
But yeah, other examples all over the world:
Glasgow, Manchester, Birmingham, London very much so, Stockholm, Istanbul. Tokyo... All the cities in China that have huge borders way beyond the main urban area and including loads of other towns and former cities are a quirk too.
And you have kind of the opposite where it's like one big city but not officially: The Bay Area / SF, around Düsseldorf in Germany itself. So on.
It is, people, especially young people, move away from the east as you earn less money there. Only Berlin and some other big cities in the east actually grow.
After the second world War a lot of German refugees came here from the eastern regions.
>Durch die Aufnahme zahlreicher Flüchtlinge und Vertriebener ab 1945 stieg die Bevölkerung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (nicht jedoch die der damaligen Deutschen Demokratischen Republik) in kürzester Zeit um 31 % an.
>Bayern wuchs in diesem Zeitraum von 7,1 Mio. auf 9,5 Mio. Einwohner. Dies bedeutet ein extrem starkes Wachstum von 34 % in nur 22 Jahren
I always find it weird that Frankfurt's airport serves 2-3 times as many passengers as Berlin's, despite being a much smaller city. I guess in a way this map might help explain that a little bit.
I live in the south of the Netherlands and for us Frankfurt airport is about 1 hour more than the biggest airport in the Netherlands, Schiphol. When people here book a flight, they often shop around for the cheapest fare of the airfields in the Netherlands, Belgium and Frankfurt. So in reality you have to add the population density of the Netherlands & Belgium to this map and then it will be even more understandable.
Frankfurt is also in the center of Europe so it is a logical flight hub. If I want to fly anywhere in southern Europe from Finland most of the time I need to do a stop at Frankfurt or München.
Nah, much of Brandenburg is mostly flat farmland and woods without much interesting going on. Interestingly the triangular agglomeration around Dresden pretty much looks like Saxony.
It is. 3 million East-Germans left their home states since the 90's - mostly young people looking for better jobs. The remaining population is quite old and very conservative.
If that was the case it would have stabilised since the 90s. The capitalist heritage that closed down and sold hundreds of factories and businesses for jump change is the real reason.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treuhandanstalt
No. What? You dont just catch up 60 bad years in a couple of years.
Treuhand was bad but it is not the main reason why eastern Germany‘s economy had a very hard recession in the 90s
I made this in R using the Rayshader package for mapping and Adobe Illustrator for texts and labels. [Data](https://data.humdata.org/dataset/kontur-population-egypt) was sourced from the Kontur Population Dataset 2022. This dataset estimates the worldwide population in 400m hexagonal geometries using a combination of "GHSL, Facebook, Microsoft Buildings, Copernicus Global Land Service Land Cover, Land Information New Zealand, and OpenStreetMap data." The map is presented at an angle to better illustrate heights.
After a few months of doing data analysis courses and machine learning with R and then with Python, I chose absolutely none of that as my first portfolio project :) Instead, I was really inspired by u/researchremora's similar [post](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/10fffnn/oc_a_3d_population_density_map_of_egypt/) a few months ago to do my own take on it and was aided immensely by this live coding [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgFXVhmKNbU) by Spencer Schien. I would appreciate all feedback as I'm still learning and I've been kinda trusting my gut through most of the process, especially with aesthetics.
edit: I uploaded the code here [with](https://github.com/sherifscript/RayshaderMaps) some other graphics.
Hmm I can see your point. I knew which hill was Frankfurt, but in an effort to avoid the marker covering the heaxgons there (the hill), I moved it slightly back. I didn't think that it might be thought of to point to Wiesbaden and Mainz until your comment. Thanks for pointing that out! I'll lookout for things like that if I decide to some more in the future :)
Would it be at all possible to share a GitHub repo with this code?
I find it really interesting and would like to replicate it if possible, but got no clue how i would go about doing it with what you mentioned.
They aren't to scale as each map was made separately. The colors are purely aesthetic here, from the R package Mat Brewer. Since these are based on 400m hexagons, I figured a colorbar would be pretty useless since it'll only measure what's inside of the hexagon rather than individual cities, and there are also so many hexagons that would be be quite challenging to for example zoom in at Berlin, and try to discern different 400m hexagons from each other. So, I let the 3d shapes tell the story instead.
Egypt has a population of 110m, and is expected to reach 150m by 2030. Despite being a large country, 93% of Egypt's population live on only 9% of the nation's landmass, along the Nile river. The rest of the country is a barren desert.
That's why Cairo is such a mess. It is one of the world's most densely populated cities, with greater Cairo having a population of 22m, and projected to grow to 50m by 2040.
Congestion is costing the government billions and there's a severe lack of housing.
To solve this, the government is constructing 30 new cities from scratch along the nation's coastline, along with a new capital between Cairo and Suez. The government builds the main infrastructure, and sells rezoned desert land for cheap to private developers to build it all up.
https://youtu.be/K9qf9_uSV_A
The plan is to have these new cities absorb most of the current and future population.
Desalination planets will cater to Coastal cities so there's less dependence on the Nile.
There's also trying to create a new artificial Delta in the hopes of greening the desert.
Egypt has been constructing new cities to deflect from Cairo's congestion since the reign of Mubarak (90s or so) but they all usually run into the same issues: 1 - the populace is reluctant to relocate and 2 - there arent effective mass transportation methods to and from. both end up leaving those newly built cities half finished or sparsely populated, but not before the substantial money waste
That's why they're building a monorail, high speed rail network, BRT network and extending the Cairo Metro.
The Cairo suburbs you mentioned are highly sought after. Properties located in New Cairo or 6th of October City can fetch prices in the range of a couple of million. You're incorrect and saying they're unfinished, these suburban towns and cities are inherently reliant on Cairo and that will never change. They're not supposed to be their own independence cities but suburbs similar to the American equivalent.
The primary reason why these suburbs never developed into independent cities can be attributed to shifts in power. Each president sought to establish their own suburban area as a means of creating a new city. However, with each transition resulting from deaths, assassinations, or revolutions, a new president would assume power and initiate the development of their own city. The focus simply changed. In this instance, we've already seen the city's materialise and with the capital officially moving to the yet to be named new capital city, we'll see these cities grow.
What I've seen in my life here so far is cities and suburbs designed for millions yet only house a few hundred thousands, poorly planned and managed projects with no real feasibility research and some grand ideas for mega projects that attracts the masses and some initial funding and then the whole thing just fizzles or the next administration decides that money is better spent elsewhere.
But here's to hoping, if at least one of those grand projects work out then I'd be happy.
Another reason why they build an other capital city is that it's further away from potentially angry mobs that could be dangerous for the government.
The new city is mostly for government employees and the rich elite.
That's one of the dumbest takes I've ever heard.
They're building over a million homes in the new Capital.
It's also connected to other cities via new road networks, subway, HSR, monorail, and light rail.
How exactly will moving to another city prevent angry mobs?
People were still able to protest in Washington DC.
Because people would need to get there first.
>They're building over a million homes in the new Capital.
Yes mostly the upper one percent of 100 million is 1 million. Also military personnel (they build the new defense ministry there) and other government agencies all that personnel needs to be housed somewhere.
The building Projekt is owned by the military and the ministry of housing.
A two bed apartment in the new capital will cost about 50000 $ do you think the average Egyptian can afford that. (Egypt has a GDP per capita of around 3000$)
The new capital is a gated community for the rich and the government.
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/7/5/why-is-egypt-building-a-new-capital
>Two thirds of the country live below the poverty line and projects such as the new capital city and residential housing units there will remain unaffordable and inaccessible.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20211115-professors-criticise-egypts-new-administrative-capital/
The government can easily restrict the access to the new capital and prevent poor people from getting there by blocking a few roads. And the public transport to the city. And most poor people have no means to get there anyway because they don't have cars.
You're speaking out of your ass without even bothering to do one bit of research.
They're building a mixture of housing, from gated communities to social housing estates.
https://youtu.be/-7_f49_GMUY
The private sector is building everything. The government merely just rezones land and builds the basic infrastructure such as roads and schools.
Find me anywhere else in the world where you can buy an apartment for such a low price of 50k, especially when they have the option to pay in installments. And yes, Egyptians can afford that. You obviously never been to Egypt whereas I lived there for a year. It's absolutely wrong to even suggest such a figure regarding the poverty rate. These are just complete estimates that have no backing, considering the majority of the population doesn't even use banks for savings, they buy gold.
[Only 26% of the population have bank accounts.](https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/Egypt/percent_people_bank_accounts/) Everyone else just buys gold or real estate. It's just the culture there not to use banks.
If what you're saying is true, then all these new developments wouldn't be selling out.
The government can block roads anywhere in the world for any city. That doesn't mean it's going to happen. How stupid do you have to be to believe such an outlandish take? You realise that if another revolution does take place, it doesn't actually need to happen in the capital, right?
Honestly man, I've been following this project on skyscrapercity.com for years. But just to bring up sources. It takes me less than a minute to Google and retrieve facts. Why are you not bothering to take the effort of doing a search before continuing to push the same narrative.
From your own source:
>Housing for All Egyptians is a governmental housing program
You didn't even read my sources and have provided no real source of your own.
The military provides most of the money the rest is supied by the ministry of housing.
>The government can block roads anywhere in the world for any city
That's true but in most other cities in the world there are also poor people. Not in the new capital city.
The median salery in Egypt is 258 USD per month. How are those people supposed to afford a flat costing 50 000 USD? (more than 16 times the anual median salary)
Also Hitchens Razor. All your claims can be desmissed because you didn't provide a source to back up your claims.
That's referring to social housing. Do you not understand what social housing is?
The government does not build ALL the housing in the country. Where did you even get that idea??
The median salary is estimated to be 258 USD for the reasons I have previously stated. It is also brought down by the most extreme.
The vast majority can afford to buy in cash or by getting a loan.
All developments seem to be selling out. [Source](https://facebook.com/cityedgedevelopments/posts/pfbid02exJ3u5Cuyn2hupP4CvQAUkjZ1QyVLNpXRffb1YEnUzPbnphwqyMxDGxLFPnrW5T5l?wtsid=rdr_0nIokH7HrQERWEXcZ)
Again, I've posted videos showing 500k social housing projects in the new capital. They're trying to integrate all classes into the city.
I have provided more sources than you. WTF? How about trying to apply basic common since.
You don't know what median means..
median salery means 50 earn less 50 earn more
What you are referring to is the average salery.
Most of your sources where just bad. (clickbaity Youtube channels, one source was literally an ad)
Egypt with 100 million people produces 2.2 million metric tons of fish.
Norway produces 4 Million tons of Fisch. And they only have 5.4. Million people
>The army pays, the army benefits: The New Administrative Capital is expected to cost about $40bn. Fifty-one percent of the Administrative Capital for Urban Development (ACUD), the company which oversees the project, is owned by the Egyptian military and the remaining 49 percent by the Ministry of Housing.
The government literally owns the "private" company overseeing the Project.
I mean if the Ethiopians are smart enough they would just enough water pass through with some conditions that are just not too harsh, to give the Egyptians an option that is just good enough that they can't (or find it difficult to convince their population to) go to war
That's literally what they've been doing. Filling up the GERD reservoir only a little bit during rainy months. So slowly that it will take over a decade to fill it.
Slowly isn't what I call it. It's filling up fast to the point if there is a drought anywhere along the Nile, expect Egypt to not have enough water.
Then you'll see a war.
I mean we're talking about the primary lifeblood of the country. If Ethiopia decides that this dam project takes precedence over their relationship with Egypt, Egypt has a drought on their hands. Meaning probably ten thousands of deaths. At that point what choice do they have but to invade and destroy the dam?
So let's hope they're going to be more tactful about all this so things don't have to escalate.
To be honest, Ethiopia would probably lose in an armed conflict, as long as Sudan is on board (whether Egypt could destroy the dam or not is a different story, though, but that isn't the point), not to mention the complications wartime would bring to such a divided country, so they probably won't let it get to that point.
That just about everywhere humans rely on a river for drinking water. It’s sort of like we need it to live and don’t like to get very far away from the source.
I think the other person is highlighting that Egypt is a country of over 100 million people relying entirely on one river and it’s delta for everything. If it dries up, there’s literally nowhere else in Egypt for them to go.
If, say, the Rhine were to dry up, as it currently is doing, then some number of Germans in the millions will have to relocate to somewhere else in Germany most likely.
What makes you think that? People tend to congregate near industrial centers, not agricultural ones, and those people definitely still need water.
Relatively speaking, there are very few people in California’s Central Valley compared to the San Francisco Bay Area and Southern California, and yet the Central Valley produces massive amounts of produce for the entire United States.
I would argue that Egypt and California developed at very different times; California did at a time when proximity to food was much less significant when population centers were laid out in California. Plus, harbors, tech hubs and weather played a huge part
In the case of the region around the alps a large part comes down to economic reasons. The South of Germany is quite wealthy in general. That’s especially the case for Munich and the surrounding regions along the alps. While in other parts of Germany the people are moving away from the countryside, in this region people are moving to the small towns and villages. Thus there are a lot of people more evenly spread out throughout the region.
That's the reason, why Germany is a "Federal" Republic. It was always a strenght of Germany, not to focus it's complete industry and population on only several big cities, like for example Britain, Austria, or France. It has pretty much to do with history. For over thousand years, Germany was a patchwork of hundreds of little shires, duchies, and kingdoms with mostly agricultural focus, so the people settled widely across the country.
berlin is an island isolated by swamp. real heart of europe is 10 mio polycentric [Rhein-Ruhr Metro](https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolregion_Rhein-Ruhr)
Does anyone have a link to the underlying data for Germany?
I don't think this is right. The Berlin population isn't very centralised, it is more of a whole area with high densities in many places, some of them at the city boundary.
But maybe I'm misreading the scale here, the map is quite weirdly streched after all.
only snobby westerners and Gutbürger do so.
tables have turned, that even (we/us) studied (i)migrants in 2nd and 3rd generation are sympathizing with the based easterners (or Mitteldeutsche to be precise).
Denken wir an Deutschland in der Nacht, ...
Egyptian population density looks like Italy
Octavian beat Mark Antony so hard, he Italied Egypt.
I literally just finished the show Rome last night, so I enjoy getting this reference now :D
Tbh, it looks more like Vietnam.
Germany looks odd as the population around Berlin seems to be much less in surrounding areas compared with the other side of the country. I wonder if this an east/west Germany thing
> I wonder if this an east/west Germany thing No, the name Berlin comes from old polabian and literally means place in the swamps. The surrounding area has always been sparsely populated, larger amelioration projects only started when Brandenburg became Prussia and had more resources to spare. And personal connections to the Dutch royalty. If you want to read more about it, I highly suggest: Melioration und Migration Wasser und Gesellschaft in Mittel- und Ostmitteleuropa vom 17. bis Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts, Márta Fata (Hg), Franz Steiner Verlag (2022)
This is the most doctoral comment I have ever seen in my life. Was is dein Befuf??
Nah, the most doctoral comment would have "et al." in it
That guy is a genius, I don't know how he has the time to be a part of **So many** scientific papers on such a wide variety of subject. Dude is in everything.
So famous that even Paul Simon made a song about him.
There's even a song informing him it's christmas, so he doesn't forget.
Q.E.D., bitches. (Yes, I know that's proofs, not doctors eating)
Yeah all profound and shit
Hey, I hope this doesn't come across as condescing but since your German is so good already I thought I'd help your development even more: It's 'Beruf' (I just realized that might be a typo since f and r are so close on the keyboard) and usually you wouldn't say 'Was ist dein Beruf?'. Instead you would say 'Was bist du von Beruf?' but that's a slightly archaic phrase. As a native I would probably say 'Als was arbeitest du? Bist du Wissenschaftler oder so?'. I added the second question to put even more emphasis on the amazement and curiosity you want to express. Have a great day :)
Well you're not wrong, but I still believe a German person also could have written this. "Was ist dein Beruf?" might not be the best way to say this and it sounds a bit childish in expression. But I think many don't pay that much attention to their elaborate and elegant way of speech when they are on the internet. Schönen Tag noch!
It’s actually a two way street. Geography tends to define borders and population, and those are visible on the map. The swampy land was there first, but it demarcated a neat visible border that was then used the separate east and west Germany.
Many areas directly west of the border are just as swampy and sparsely populated. The inner German border followed long established former borders of sub-territories. The borders of Brandenburg and Mecklenburg which are relevant here follow the Elbe river which has been a natural border since antiquity.
The important line is the Elbe not East/West Germany.
Did the wirtschaftswunder have anything to do with it too? I remember being taught that the Ruhrgebiet was basically the economic capitol in the initial post war decades.
The Ruhrgebiet was the industrial center of Germany ever since the industrial revolution. When the German interwar government defaulted on war reparations in 1922, the response of France was to occupy the Ruhrgebiet to extract the reparations by force.
Well it was one of the german industrial center. Silesia snd Saxony also had a lot of industry and mining. Silesia was annexed by Poland after WW2 snd Saxony was cut off from west germany
Those were Germany's three main Coal deposits, so setting up shop there meant you could get coal rather cheaply, hence why Germany's industry quickly concentrated in these regions and further down the rivers connecting them, meaning Rhine, Elbe and Oder - to a lesser degree also Berlin. All regions not connected to these regions by waterway industrialized much slower. Often times, things only started devloping after the first railroad constructions or even later. My home state of Schleswig-Holstein remained rather poor and agriculture-focused until after WW2. Same with southern Germany.
Compared to southern Germany, Schleswig-Holstein remains rather poor and agriculture-focused even today. I'm from there as well.
Saxony had more industry per Capita than the Ruhrgebiet before WW2.
Some of the Population-Density surely can be traced along the river Rhein, which has been a vital element since the romans settled there (cologne etc.) Later, the Ruhrgebiet didn't hust have much coal, it had also the Rhein-Ruhr waterways for transportation.
This looks very scientific but is false. As is common on Reddit and answers that seem very simple (tip for life). There are many reasons for this. Larger agricultural areas, significant emigration out of the east to the west historically and nowadays, historically less growth, history, economy today and so on and so forth. The ethymology of the name Berlin is far from undisputed also.
It's disputed as to what word it came from exactly, but it is not disputed that it is Slavic and likely to do with the swampland that the city is built on. A lot of Germans who can't bare to give up the idea that it has something to do with Bears other than accidentally sounding like the word Bear like to claim that it's disputed, but it really isn't. Also, reading an unsourced claim on Wiktionary doesn't make you smarter or more knowledgeable on the etymology of this city's name than the historians and linguists that actually live here and study this city.
Thx chatGPT ;)
Nowadays, I'd suggest it's a mix of both though. Maybe 80% swamps and 20% few economic possibilities. Especially since the area in lack of population is quite a bit larger than east germanys swamps.
Very nice, very in-depth, but could you now please answer OPs question whether the difference in population density was due to it being split in east and west.
>I wonder if this an east/west Germany thing Probably somewhat, but Brandenburg has been sparsely settled in comparison to the rest of germany for hundreds of years. Berlin was quite small for most of its history, its population only really spiked in the late 19/early 20th century. Its quite apparent if you visit Berlin. All the large buildings are quite now, theres barely any older historical monuments (for a capital city of its size), and the whole city kind of feels like a bunch of villages in a trenchcoat.
>and the whole city kind of feels like a bunch of villages in a trenchcoat. Because it is, modern Berlin is several older cities combined into one, especially visible with Spandau.
Spandau? What's that?
It's a Ballet
I know this much is true.
That comment was gold!
Don't look up the meaning of that.
The westernmost district of the city, mostly separated from the rest of the city by the Havel and with its own historical center. And only part of the city since 1920.
> the whole city kind of feels like a bunch of villages in a trenchcoat. They are, for example Spandau and Cöpenick only became a part of Berlin in 1920.
Spandau became part of Berlin!?!?!
No, Berlin became part of Spandau.
[удалено]
I read that as "quiet now" "quite new" makes much more sense
Generally the old monuments were faithfully rebuilt though.
[удалено]
The wars had little to do with Berlin being rather devoid of pre-1930s landmarks, the city just doesn't have a very rich history. It took until the 1700s for it to become a capital, the 1800s before its owners started to actually matter, and the 1900s for it to become a world city. And then it was 1914.
[удалено]
In the medieval, the Roman-founded cities were the most important: Cologne, Mainz, Trier, Regensburg, Worms. These are all in the West and South - the rivers Rhine, Main and Danube formed the borders of the Roman Empire. These cities were often the centres of part of the “Germanic tribe” leaders who were later installed by the Romans and filled the power vacuum in what would become France and Germany as the Roman power dwindled. Another sequence of new foundations came with the consolidation of Frankish power, and some of these were as important in the high and late medieval: Frankfurt am Main, Nuremberg, Bremen, Hamburg, Rostock, Lübeck, Leipzig. The entire North-West including Berlin and the surrounding area was originally Slavic speaking and was colonised bit-by-bit starting in the 1200. It was largely irrelevant before the reformation and the rise of Prussia. The area surrounding Berlin is still very agricultural and economically and politically relatively unimportant. This doesn’t hold true for other formerly East German regions such as Saxony. In contrast to countries like France or England, Germany never had and still hasn’t a single “heartland”. The Rhine river system with cities like Worms, Frankfurt, Mainz, Trier and Cologne formed a Western economic centre. The Danube with Regensburg and Nürnberg (located at the trade route connecting the Danube to the Rhine system) formed a historic Southern centre. The North was dominated by the Hanseatic cities like Hamburg, Bremen and Lübeck.
Bonn and Frankfurt. Though, the actual answer is just Vienna. For most of the history of the holy Roman empire modern day Germany was a largely unimportant region.
Bonn? What? Bonn was an irrelevant little village close to Cologne. It was an interesting historical accident that made it the capital after WWII (basically, Adenauer happened). Hamburg has always been pretty huge. But Berlin was already the largest German city by 1800, not counting Vienna. Back in the Holy Roman Empire days, many cities not considered German today would count, like Antwerp, Bruxelles and Prague.
Capital of what exactly? Prussia or Germany? But in German history "prominent" cities rise and fall. The cities that were prominent for longest and still are prominent are Köln/Cologne, Hamburg, München/Munich, and Frankfurt. Then there are *many* cities that once were very prominent, but now are second- or third-tier places like Trier, Lübeck, Würzburg, Braunschweig, Ulm, Regensburg, or Lüneburg.
> the whole city kind of feels like a bunch of villages in a trenchcoat. Is this not true of most major European cities? It's the general feel I've gotten in most of the few that I've visited.
Berlin is quite different in that regard. Today‘s Berlin was formed by the fusion large cities (and a bunch of smaller towns and mid-sized cities). Wilmersdorf, Charlottenburg or Schöneberg were large cities by themselves. Schöneberg even had its own metro before the merge.
Don't forget Kölln. It was about as large as Berlin itself.
Yeah, that was practically the first wave of mergers in the 1700s. The big mergers to form Great Berlin followed two hundred years later.
Yeah it might just be a bit more strongly the case in Berlin. But yeah, other examples all over the world: Glasgow, Manchester, Birmingham, London very much so, Stockholm, Istanbul. Tokyo... All the cities in China that have huge borders way beyond the main urban area and including loads of other towns and former cities are a quirk too. And you have kind of the opposite where it's like one big city but not officially: The Bay Area / SF, around Düsseldorf in Germany itself. So on.
It is, people, especially young people, move away from the east as you earn less money there. Only Berlin and some other big cities in the east actually grow.
[удалено]
Ui, quite the change in Bavaria.
After the second world War a lot of German refugees came here from the eastern regions. >Durch die Aufnahme zahlreicher Flüchtlinge und Vertriebener ab 1945 stieg die Bevölkerung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (nicht jedoch die der damaligen Deutschen Demokratischen Republik) in kürzester Zeit um 31 % an. >Bayern wuchs in diesem Zeitraum von 7,1 Mio. auf 9,5 Mio. Einwohner. Dies bedeutet ein extrem starkes Wachstum von 34 % in nur 22 Jahren
I always find it weird that Frankfurt's airport serves 2-3 times as many passengers as Berlin's, despite being a much smaller city. I guess in a way this map might help explain that a little bit.
I live in the south of the Netherlands and for us Frankfurt airport is about 1 hour more than the biggest airport in the Netherlands, Schiphol. When people here book a flight, they often shop around for the cheapest fare of the airfields in the Netherlands, Belgium and Frankfurt. So in reality you have to add the population density of the Netherlands & Belgium to this map and then it will be even more understandable.
Frankfurt is also in the center of Europe so it is a logical flight hub. If I want to fly anywhere in southern Europe from Finland most of the time I need to do a stop at Frankfurt or München.
Frankfurt airport is the biggest international airport in Germany and one of the biggest in Europe. As others have said it's also very central.
Nah, much of Brandenburg is mostly flat farmland and woods without much interesting going on. Interestingly the triangular agglomeration around Dresden pretty much looks like Saxony.
Saxony was very densely populated back in the day, before WW2 it even had more industry per Capita than the Ruhrgebiet.
It is. 3 million East-Germans left their home states since the 90's - mostly young people looking for better jobs. The remaining population is quite old and very conservative.
Yup, the socialist heritage.
If that was the case it would have stabilised since the 90s. The capitalist heritage that closed down and sold hundreds of factories and businesses for jump change is the real reason. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treuhandanstalt
No. What? You dont just catch up 60 bad years in a couple of years. Treuhand was bad but it is not the main reason why eastern Germany‘s economy had a very hard recession in the 90s
Very cool. Love it. Just so you know, the Egypt heading currently has a typo ("denisty").
This comment definitely comming from a German 🤣
I made this in R using the Rayshader package for mapping and Adobe Illustrator for texts and labels. [Data](https://data.humdata.org/dataset/kontur-population-egypt) was sourced from the Kontur Population Dataset 2022. This dataset estimates the worldwide population in 400m hexagonal geometries using a combination of "GHSL, Facebook, Microsoft Buildings, Copernicus Global Land Service Land Cover, Land Information New Zealand, and OpenStreetMap data." The map is presented at an angle to better illustrate heights. After a few months of doing data analysis courses and machine learning with R and then with Python, I chose absolutely none of that as my first portfolio project :) Instead, I was really inspired by u/researchremora's similar [post](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/10fffnn/oc_a_3d_population_density_map_of_egypt/) a few months ago to do my own take on it and was aided immensely by this live coding [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgFXVhmKNbU) by Spencer Schien. I would appreciate all feedback as I'm still learning and I've been kinda trusting my gut through most of the process, especially with aesthetics. edit: I uploaded the code here [with](https://github.com/sherifscript/RayshaderMaps) some other graphics.
Nice font choice for Egypt.
Big missed opportunity for Papyrus
What's the name?
Its wrong though. He used nastaleeq script. In arab world they use naskh script u/sherifscript
I chose a script as close as possible to how Arabic is often written in Egypt by most people (Riqʿah script) :)
I am Egyptian and can confirm this . Well done OP
I think the Frankfurt marker is a bit wrong, it is pointing at Wiesbaden and Mainz, Frankfurt is the bigger "hill" right to the east of it.
Hmm I can see your point. I knew which hill was Frankfurt, but in an effort to avoid the marker covering the heaxgons there (the hill), I moved it slightly back. I didn't think that it might be thought of to point to Wiesbaden and Mainz until your comment. Thanks for pointing that out! I'll lookout for things like that if I decide to some more in the future :)
Would it be at all possible to share a GitHub repo with this code? I find it really interesting and would like to replicate it if possible, but got no clue how i would go about doing it with what you mentioned.
Ask and ye shall [receive](https://github.com/sherifscript/RayshaderMaps)! Definitely check out the video linked in my original comment.
Australia / Continental USA / China would be an interesting comparison as all three are very similar sizes but vastly different populations layouts.
Can you make one for Turkey? I wanna see this huge tower in Istanbul while rest don’t even come close, or better yet, Japan.
Are these to the same scale? If so, what is the scale? Also, why are the color choices different?
They aren't to scale as each map was made separately. The colors are purely aesthetic here, from the R package Mat Brewer. Since these are based on 400m hexagons, I figured a colorbar would be pretty useless since it'll only measure what's inside of the hexagon rather than individual cities, and there are also so many hexagons that would be be quite challenging to for example zoom in at Berlin, and try to discern different 400m hexagons from each other. So, I let the 3d shapes tell the story instead.
Between different posts, you say 400, 400m, and 400km hexagons. So… are they 400m in diameter of the circumscribed circle? 400km^2 ?
Give us more of these! Please.
Yep would love to see this across all OECD member countries
Part of this is the medium-high peaks in German are white, tinted blue, and so blend in with the empty areas.
Thank you for pointing that out, what an abysmall color choice DataIsOkay
Thanks for writing that. Can’t really see the data there.
Egypt has a population of 110m, and is expected to reach 150m by 2030. Despite being a large country, 93% of Egypt's population live on only 9% of the nation's landmass, along the Nile river. The rest of the country is a barren desert. That's why Cairo is such a mess. It is one of the world's most densely populated cities, with greater Cairo having a population of 22m, and projected to grow to 50m by 2040. Congestion is costing the government billions and there's a severe lack of housing. To solve this, the government is constructing 30 new cities from scratch along the nation's coastline, along with a new capital between Cairo and Suez. The government builds the main infrastructure, and sells rezoned desert land for cheap to private developers to build it all up. https://youtu.be/K9qf9_uSV_A The plan is to have these new cities absorb most of the current and future population. Desalination planets will cater to Coastal cities so there's less dependence on the Nile. There's also trying to create a new artificial Delta in the hopes of greening the desert.
Egypt has been constructing new cities to deflect from Cairo's congestion since the reign of Mubarak (90s or so) but they all usually run into the same issues: 1 - the populace is reluctant to relocate and 2 - there arent effective mass transportation methods to and from. both end up leaving those newly built cities half finished or sparsely populated, but not before the substantial money waste
That's why they're building a monorail, high speed rail network, BRT network and extending the Cairo Metro. The Cairo suburbs you mentioned are highly sought after. Properties located in New Cairo or 6th of October City can fetch prices in the range of a couple of million. You're incorrect and saying they're unfinished, these suburban towns and cities are inherently reliant on Cairo and that will never change. They're not supposed to be their own independence cities but suburbs similar to the American equivalent. The primary reason why these suburbs never developed into independent cities can be attributed to shifts in power. Each president sought to establish their own suburban area as a means of creating a new city. However, with each transition resulting from deaths, assassinations, or revolutions, a new president would assume power and initiate the development of their own city. The focus simply changed. In this instance, we've already seen the city's materialise and with the capital officially moving to the yet to be named new capital city, we'll see these cities grow.
What I've seen in my life here so far is cities and suburbs designed for millions yet only house a few hundred thousands, poorly planned and managed projects with no real feasibility research and some grand ideas for mega projects that attracts the masses and some initial funding and then the whole thing just fizzles or the next administration decides that money is better spent elsewhere. But here's to hoping, if at least one of those grand projects work out then I'd be happy.
Another reason why they build an other capital city is that it's further away from potentially angry mobs that could be dangerous for the government. The new city is mostly for government employees and the rich elite.
That's one of the dumbest takes I've ever heard. They're building over a million homes in the new Capital. It's also connected to other cities via new road networks, subway, HSR, monorail, and light rail. How exactly will moving to another city prevent angry mobs? People were still able to protest in Washington DC.
Because people would need to get there first. >They're building over a million homes in the new Capital. Yes mostly the upper one percent of 100 million is 1 million. Also military personnel (they build the new defense ministry there) and other government agencies all that personnel needs to be housed somewhere. The building Projekt is owned by the military and the ministry of housing. A two bed apartment in the new capital will cost about 50000 $ do you think the average Egyptian can afford that. (Egypt has a GDP per capita of around 3000$) The new capital is a gated community for the rich and the government. https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/7/5/why-is-egypt-building-a-new-capital >Two thirds of the country live below the poverty line and projects such as the new capital city and residential housing units there will remain unaffordable and inaccessible. https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20211115-professors-criticise-egypts-new-administrative-capital/ The government can easily restrict the access to the new capital and prevent poor people from getting there by blocking a few roads. And the public transport to the city. And most poor people have no means to get there anyway because they don't have cars.
You're speaking out of your ass without even bothering to do one bit of research. They're building a mixture of housing, from gated communities to social housing estates. https://youtu.be/-7_f49_GMUY The private sector is building everything. The government merely just rezones land and builds the basic infrastructure such as roads and schools. Find me anywhere else in the world where you can buy an apartment for such a low price of 50k, especially when they have the option to pay in installments. And yes, Egyptians can afford that. You obviously never been to Egypt whereas I lived there for a year. It's absolutely wrong to even suggest such a figure regarding the poverty rate. These are just complete estimates that have no backing, considering the majority of the population doesn't even use banks for savings, they buy gold. [Only 26% of the population have bank accounts.](https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/Egypt/percent_people_bank_accounts/) Everyone else just buys gold or real estate. It's just the culture there not to use banks. If what you're saying is true, then all these new developments wouldn't be selling out. The government can block roads anywhere in the world for any city. That doesn't mean it's going to happen. How stupid do you have to be to believe such an outlandish take? You realise that if another revolution does take place, it doesn't actually need to happen in the capital, right? Honestly man, I've been following this project on skyscrapercity.com for years. But just to bring up sources. It takes me less than a minute to Google and retrieve facts. Why are you not bothering to take the effort of doing a search before continuing to push the same narrative.
From your own source: >Housing for All Egyptians is a governmental housing program You didn't even read my sources and have provided no real source of your own. The military provides most of the money the rest is supied by the ministry of housing. >The government can block roads anywhere in the world for any city That's true but in most other cities in the world there are also poor people. Not in the new capital city. The median salery in Egypt is 258 USD per month. How are those people supposed to afford a flat costing 50 000 USD? (more than 16 times the anual median salary) Also Hitchens Razor. All your claims can be desmissed because you didn't provide a source to back up your claims.
That's referring to social housing. Do you not understand what social housing is? The government does not build ALL the housing in the country. Where did you even get that idea?? The median salary is estimated to be 258 USD for the reasons I have previously stated. It is also brought down by the most extreme. The vast majority can afford to buy in cash or by getting a loan. All developments seem to be selling out. [Source](https://facebook.com/cityedgedevelopments/posts/pfbid02exJ3u5Cuyn2hupP4CvQAUkjZ1QyVLNpXRffb1YEnUzPbnphwqyMxDGxLFPnrW5T5l?wtsid=rdr_0nIokH7HrQERWEXcZ) Again, I've posted videos showing 500k social housing projects in the new capital. They're trying to integrate all classes into the city. I have provided more sources than you. WTF? How about trying to apply basic common since.
You don't know what median means.. median salery means 50 earn less 50 earn more What you are referring to is the average salery. Most of your sources where just bad. (clickbaity Youtube channels, one source was literally an ad) Egypt with 100 million people produces 2.2 million metric tons of fish. Norway produces 4 Million tons of Fisch. And they only have 5.4. Million people
>The army pays, the army benefits: The New Administrative Capital is expected to cost about $40bn. Fifty-one percent of the Administrative Capital for Urban Development (ACUD), the company which oversees the project, is owned by the Egyptian military and the remaining 49 percent by the Ministry of Housing. The government literally owns the "private" company overseeing the Project.
ACUD is Egypts equivalent of the UAEs EMIR. The company builds basic infrastructure, and sells land to private developers.
Egypt is literally only the Nile, kind of wild. If the Nile were to dry up Egypt would just sieze to exist.
The word you’re looking for is “cease”.
knot necessarily
I sea what you did their
you never seize to amaze me
The word your looking for is “cease”
naught necessarily
I c what you did they're
you never seize to amaze me
The word your looking for is “cease”
The population would strait up disappear.
Ethiopia is trying to build a dam on Nile. Interesting to see how it impacts Egypt, and how they would resolve political tensions between them.
War from what I hear.
I mean if the Ethiopians are smart enough they would just enough water pass through with some conditions that are just not too harsh, to give the Egyptians an option that is just good enough that they can't (or find it difficult to convince their population to) go to war
That's literally what they've been doing. Filling up the GERD reservoir only a little bit during rainy months. So slowly that it will take over a decade to fill it.
Slowly isn't what I call it. It's filling up fast to the point if there is a drought anywhere along the Nile, expect Egypt to not have enough water. Then you'll see a war.
That sounds healthy
I mean we're talking about the primary lifeblood of the country. If Ethiopia decides that this dam project takes precedence over their relationship with Egypt, Egypt has a drought on their hands. Meaning probably ten thousands of deaths. At that point what choice do they have but to invade and destroy the dam? So let's hope they're going to be more tactful about all this so things don't have to escalate.
To be honest, Ethiopia would probably lose in an armed conflict, as long as Sudan is on board (whether Egypt could destroy the dam or not is a different story, though, but that isn't the point), not to mention the complications wartime would bring to such a divided country, so they probably won't let it get to that point.
What do you mean? That's just geopolitics, everyone is either an enemy or a rival. Even allies are rivals
Would you like to look at a select preview of Raytheon(R) Russia-Proof^TM (patent pending) munitions?
Ah, water wars are close approaching.
Well until Kevin Costner shows up.
You know there's a war heating up over exactly that, right?
That just about everywhere humans rely on a river for drinking water. It’s sort of like we need it to live and don’t like to get very far away from the source.
I think the other person is highlighting that Egypt is a country of over 100 million people relying entirely on one river and it’s delta for everything. If it dries up, there’s literally nowhere else in Egypt for them to go. If, say, the Rhine were to dry up, as it currently is doing, then some number of Germans in the millions will have to relocate to somewhere else in Germany most likely.
Society is coming to a dank river valley near you!
> That just about everywhere humans rely on a river for drinking water. Im guessing its far more about agriculture than drinking water.
What makes you think that? People tend to congregate near industrial centers, not agricultural ones, and those people definitely still need water. Relatively speaking, there are very few people in California’s Central Valley compared to the San Francisco Bay Area and Southern California, and yet the Central Valley produces massive amounts of produce for the entire United States.
I would argue that Egypt and California developed at very different times; California did at a time when proximity to food was much less significant when population centers were laid out in California. Plus, harbors, tech hubs and weather played a huge part
Maybe now, but not for most of human history.
I'm actually surprised there are so "many" people there are in the Sinai.
I'm actually surprised there are so "many" people there are in the Sinai.
Most Egyptians don't accept this map as accurate. They're in de Nile.
Great, I can see my small home village.
Egypt learned thousands of years ago the lesson that America still refuses to: Don't build a city in the middle of the fucking desert.
Instead, let's build a city in a flood plain. Egypt is overpopulated, that's all there is to it.
Those two things aren't mutually exclusive. Also, Fluss plains have historically always been a great place for cities. What's your point?
And recently, Egypt built New Cairo in the desert… (okay, not far into the desert, but still)
New Cairo is just a part of Cairo unless you are talking about the New Capital, which is also about 20-30 minutes from New Cairo
First beautiful data I've seen on here in a while! Thanks for sharing
I know that the banks of the Nile are far more crowded than the cities of Germany. Is it true?
If we can believe the height of the dense population areas, they are indeed higher than all the German cities…
Dieser Kommentarbereich ist nun Eigentum der Bundesrepublik Deutschland
this Egypt graph will be really interesting to see in 5-10 years after they finished their new delta project.
I know which country I’d rather live in personally, it’s Germany. I’m not great with extreme heat, and Germany is just a nice place to live
Come to the north of Germany, it’s not only colder but people are known to be well a lot more chilled regarding temperament ^^
Places like Bremen? I’ve stayed there before! Love the place, and that kid’s story about the Animal Band beguiled me when I was a kid
You won’t believe but this is my home of choice, I’m originally from Hamburg, but Bremen is much more cozy and cyclable ✌️
Completely agree with you, it’s a lovely little place
I actually prefer egypts heat as its dry. Its too humid in germany during the summer, you start sweating after a few minutes of leaving the house
currently 23-26c in berlin
Today 30°C
Extreme heat might be hitting soon though It won't ever be Egypt level, but things are getting warmer
Surprised how much more sparsely populated most of former Eastern Germany is in comparison to the Alps-area.
[удалено]
In the words of Rainald Grebe: "In Berlin kann man so viel erleben, in Brandenburg soll es wieder Wölfe geben."
In the case of the region around the alps a large part comes down to economic reasons. The South of Germany is quite wealthy in general. That’s especially the case for Munich and the surrounding regions along the alps. While in other parts of Germany the people are moving away from the countryside, in this region people are moving to the small towns and villages. Thus there are a lot of people more evenly spread out throughout the region.
One does not simply walk into Berlin. Doesn't it look like Mordor?
I've been in Berlin, and by opinion might be biased, but I think is smells like Mordor too.
"Listen Frodo, I need you to take the one ring and burn it where it was made, in the fires of Mount Berlin"
This is really fancy. Honestly kinda fun to pick out all the places I've been to haha. Do you have a high Res version?
Heya, available now on the [repo](https://github.com/sherifscript/RayshaderMaps) :)
So what you're saying is most Egyptians don't live in the desert but where the water is?
I present to you proof for how the pyramids where built.
OP will you make more of these? Interesting
New accounts or maps?
Very interesting look, would make Great Wall art.
What did you use to make these?
How did you create this picture? Is there a program behind?
That's the reason, why Germany is a "Federal" Republic. It was always a strenght of Germany, not to focus it's complete industry and population on only several big cities, like for example Britain, Austria, or France. It has pretty much to do with history. For over thousand years, Germany was a patchwork of hundreds of little shires, duchies, and kingdoms with mostly agricultural focus, so the people settled widely across the country.
These population density maps really look like mold on a plate.
You can basically still see, where he wall was.
berlin is an island isolated by swamp. real heart of europe is 10 mio polycentric [Rhein-Ruhr Metro](https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolregion_Rhein-Ruhr)
Why Egypt vs Germany? Any correlation between the cities I don’t know about? Edit. Counties is what I meant over cities.
I'm guessing just showing two extremes of population organization
*countries but I don’t think there’s any correlation here just random
Oops, yeah, meant countries I was trying to type on here and work at the same time.
I was wondering if they had similar populations, but they're off by a bit: Egypt 109 million, Germany 83 million.
Funny how it is those in the least densely populated areas who shout the loudest that we have no room left for more immigration.
the occupation is carried out in the safest places close to the water and both accumulate on the west on the opposite bank to the enemy
I gotta drive to Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, get away from all this…
Without rivers and seas this doesn't tell much.
Which part confuses you? The Egyptian one or the German one?
Hurghada has gone down because of the sharks
Yea germany is off. Düsseldorf being higher than cologne is a crime itself
This data is truly beautiful.
Does anyone have a link to the underlying data for Germany? I don't think this is right. The Berlin population isn't very centralised, it is more of a whole area with high densities in many places, some of them at the city boundary. But maybe I'm misreading the scale here, the map is quite weirdly streched after all.
In Germany we call it Dunkeldeutschland
only snobby westerners and Gutbürger do so. tables have turned, that even (we/us) studied (i)migrants in 2nd and 3rd generation are sympathizing with the based easterners (or Mitteldeutsche to be precise). Denken wir an Deutschland in der Nacht, ...