This map, showing the surface and population of selected world cities, is outdated by over two decades. It was published in the Dallas Morning News on 9 June 1983, since when the population of Dallas itself, for example, has grown from just over 900,000 to well beyond 1.2 million inhabitants (2007).
Some of the shapes of the cities shown here might be outdated too; as they grow, cities tend to expand into and annex their environs. The tentacularity of London in this map is a good indication of that process – but has itself become obsolete: this shape no longer corresponds with any present-day depiction of the city.
What remains striking about this map, even though we’re talking about populations and surfaces of 25 years ago, are the relative population densities of the cities. Dallas and Houston are comparable to each other in population and both are in the same category, surface-wise, as London and New York. But the population of the latter two cities is roughly 6 to 8 times higher than either Houston or Dallas, indicating that these have a much lower population density. A possible explanation: the automobile (and the flat prairie they were built upon) has allowed both Texan metropolises to sprawl in ways unimaginable just over a century ago, and impossible even today in more constrained surroundings.
The two other European cities depicted here (apart from London, i.e. Amsterdam and Rome) have city centres that are smaller and more densely populated than their American cousins. About equal in size to Rome (and to each other) are Toronto, Montreal and Boston, but they are much less packed with people (2.6 million for Rome, between half a million and 1.2 million for the other cities). Chicago’s sprawl and density puts it somewhere between Dallas and London. DC and San Francisco are special, in that they are very constrained surface-wise (legally in DC’s case, physically by the Bay and the Ocean in San Francisco’s case). This ‘pressure cooker’ circumstance causes their populations to be much denser than in either of the sprawling Texan cities.
All of which is very interesting, but this is not what first drew me to this map. It is interesting in a more primordial, psychologically more revealing way, as a Rorschach inkblot test. That test, as you will recall from any number of treatments of the subject in popular culture, allows an analyst to make deductions about a subject’s personality and emotions by the way he or she interprets the shapes of random inkblots.
The method is still used, but controversial, as suggestibility, bias and other aspects of subjectivity might prevent a valid “reading” of the result. As is best summarised by this classic Rorschach joke:
“A man and a woman making love in a park,” the man replies. The psychiatrist holds up the second picture and asks the man what he sees. “A man and a woman making love in a boat.” He holds up the third picture. “A man and a woman making love at the beach.”
The psychiatrist says, “It looks like you have a preoccupation with sex.” The man replies, “Well, you’re the one with the dirty pictures.”
Here’s what my imagination makes of some of the city shapes presented here (feel free to add your own):
- Dallas: an overweight, angry, club-wielding caveman plagued by scrotal elephantiasis.
- London: a double-headed eagle clubbed to death by an overweight, angry Texan caveman.
- Chicago: a one-toothed Bart Simpson looking west.
- Washington DC: a Moai statue (as on Easter Island) tilted downward to appear even more introspective (a la Penseur by Auguste Rodin).
Incidentally, Rorschach inkblot tests were named after the Swiss psychoanalyst Hermann Rorschach, who devised the first such test in 1921. Mr Rorschach’s family name derives from an eponymous Swiss town, on the southern shore of Lake Constance. A map of Rorschach unfortunately only demonstrates that it looks like nothing at all…
Many thanks to Robert Allison for providing this link to the map.


It is rather strange to see the map of the municipality of Amsterdam.
What you need to know of Amsterdam is the crescent-like inner city,
with its canals.
Do you need to know more?
Maps of municipalities are not as familiar like the maps of countries.
Although, there seems to be no difference,
when you talk about the meaning of these maps,
and their borders/boundaries.
Comment by Faust — November 9, 2008 @ 3:24 pm
Even for 1983, the Toronto shape and size does not make sense. The “old” city of Toronto (pop. 660 000)was smaller than this shape, which seems to include East York, York, and South Etobicoke. Therfore the population of this shape would be closser to 1 million for 1983. Today, the city of Toronto proper has expanded and contains 2.5 million, and the metro area contains about 5.5million.
Comment by Ian — November 9, 2008 @ 3:34 pm
I think you meant “Houston” where you said “Austin”–Austin’s not on that chart, Houston is.
Houston is definitely a terribly sprawled-out city.
Comment by David — November 9, 2008 @ 3:40 pm
The shape of Amsterdam isn’t correct, even when taken into account that this map is 25 years old. Allready then the city of Amsterdam had an exclave to the South-East, called Bijlmermeer (Or Amsterdam Zuid-Oost). This part of Amsterdam became famous when an El-Al cargo airplane crashed there years ago.
Comment by it is aai — November 9, 2008 @ 3:49 pm
@Faust: The rest of the form of Amsterdam would be OK. Amsterdam has a half-circular form, but also a part of town (Amsterdam-Noord) is on the Northern Shore of the IJ, a body of water. That is the part hanging on the rest you see on the image.
Comment by it is aai — November 9, 2008 @ 3:52 pm
I think it is interesting too, how the boundaries of some of the cities have extended straight lines indicating some kind of municipal/legal boundary like was stated in Washington D.C. Chicago, New York, Washington D.C., and San Francisco are the examples on this map. And though there aren’t very many non U.S. cities represented, I can’t help but wonder if this straight boundary phenomenon is more common to U.S. (or perhaps cities in the new world) than older cities in the rest of the world where boundaries were drawn and cities grew in perhaps a more organic manner.
Comment by Aaron — November 9, 2008 @ 4:04 pm
Aaron: Newer cities, many of which are in the new world where expanded with the car in mind and mostly use a grid patern. (which is easy to do if the land doesn’t belong to anyone yet).
While in Europe, many settlements existed prior to the invention of the car, and when they expanded, did so by radiating away from a church that was usually always its center. As certain settlements grew larger, they bumped into and swallowed their surrounding villages and towns.
As for the sizes of such cities: I always find in baffling that a 747 kan be kept in a holding pattern above London without it ever having to cross over the M25 boundery.
Comment by patrik — November 9, 2008 @ 5:02 pm
The bottom of Dallas doesn’t look like that. It just has a big butt.
Comment by Clay Smalley — November 9, 2008 @ 5:06 pm
The map of New York City is terribly incorrect: the northern part of the Bronx has been lopped off, the Rockaways and Breezy Point have disappeared along with the islands in Jamaica Bay, and most prominently absent is Staten Island, whose inclusion would greatly increase the total area of the map and make New York seem less densely populated.
Comment by mark — November 9, 2008 @ 5:07 pm
The map of Amsterdam is also incorrect, because with this population number, it must’ve included Amsterdam Zuidoost, a part separate from the centre part of Amsterdam. How it is depicted here, it looks like a steam boat riding a giant wave…
Comment by Tijmen Stam / IIVQ — November 9, 2008 @ 6:06 pm
The map is too much US-centric for being a “Cities of the World” figure. I would have expected extremely large cities like Tokyo, Mexico City or Mumbay to appear in such a list, if published today.
Which were the world’s largest or densest cities in 1983?
Comment by Roberto Bonvallet — November 9, 2008 @ 6:19 pm
The funny thing about Houston is that despite its sprawl, its lack of zoning means that you can get virtually anything within 15 minutes of anywhere else – no bumbling city council dictates where stores, houses, and offices go, so they end up in the most convenient locations.
Comment by Nigel Watt — November 9, 2008 @ 6:36 pm
Toronto looks kind of like a saddle. I’ve always thought Boston resembled a winged fish.
Comment by Vic — November 9, 2008 @ 6:54 pm
DC isn’t quite right though… It only the official part of it. If you were to count the areas that are really part of it (Arlington, etc.) it might look different. As it is, it’s much more detailed along the Potomac than shown there.
Comment by Lurker — November 9, 2008 @ 7:01 pm
When I look at Chicago, I see a bright light that runs right off the page, but it’s travelling slower than physics would predict, taking another few months to reach the White House.
Comment by Garibaldi — November 9, 2008 @ 8:17 pm
San Francisco = an elephant sitting down or a Samurai staring upwards.
Comment by sam huddy — November 9, 2008 @ 8:29 pm
When we were driving along Lake Constance a few years ago, we passed through Rorschach and made the jokes you might expect about how to interpret the traffic signs. We assumed the name was just another random accident of language. Thanks for connecting the dots – especially that large one that looks like my 10th grade geometry teacher.
Comment by Garibaldi — November 9, 2008 @ 9:01 pm
Toronto = giant crab
London = panicking rooster
And in Poland, we have city in the shape of Donald Duck: http://dziwacznemapy.blox.pl/2008/06/20-Kaczogrod-Nie-Limanowa.html
Comment by Mroko — November 9, 2008 @ 10:02 pm
Chicago – man talking
Washington DC – Jimmy Hill (Wiki it if you don’t know who he is: you still won’t get it)
Dallas – dancing fat man
Comment by saturn5 — November 9, 2008 @ 10:41 pm
Wow, I saw exactly what you did for D.C. Otherwise, I’d have to go for London as a galloping King of Hearts, Chicago as the long neck and head of a giraffe or brontosaurus, and Montreal as someone throwing a tomahawk.
Comment by Dr. Schluss — November 10, 2008 @ 12:19 am
San Francisco looks like an oven-baked chicken.
Comment by Swiss Armada — November 10, 2008 @ 2:13 am
While not strictly map related, you might be interested to know that the ink blots used in the Rorschach Test aren’t random – or, at least, that they’re the same ten ink blots used every time.
It occurs to me that a more interesting infographic might be maps of the ten great urban centres (or great cities, or random cities in the USA or whatever) but scaled according to population to give equal size to equal population regardless of real density. Cities like Mumbai and Karachi would expand, while New York, Buenos Aires, Moscow and London would shrink.
Also, the mention of Rorschach made me think, when the line “A man goes to a psychiatrist” came up, that the continuation was going to be this:
“Man goes to doctor. Says he’s depressed. Says life seems harsh and cruel. Says he feels all alone in a threatening world where what lies ahead is vague and uncertain. Doctor says “Treatment is simple. Great clown Pagliacci is in town tonight. Go and see him. That should pick you up.” Man bursts into tears. Says “But Doctor… I am Pagliacci.”"
From the great WATCHMEN.
Comment by 256 — November 10, 2008 @ 2:24 am
your interpretation of chicago is SPOT-ON
Comment by Robin — November 10, 2008 @ 2:28 am
Rorschach looks like a human head, facing down, with a huge gap in its back. It’s you who lack imagination. :-P
Comment by The Random One — November 10, 2008 @ 2:50 am
Like 256 I cannot hear “Rorschach” with out thinking of Watchmen. It is great. I suggest that Houston (on this map) looks vaugely like the logo of the Belgian beer Gulden Draak, expect facing left instead of right as it should. When discussing sprawl in the American west, it seems Phoenix, AZ must be mentioned as well. The Streets: a perfect grid.
Comment by Matt T. Rob — November 10, 2008 @ 7:24 am
Montreal: a seated gorilla in side profile, looking up at a large excited hoopoe held on its outstretched arm.
San Francisco: a chunky cartoon elephant looking east.
Amsterdam: a chunky cartoon Scottie dog laughing uproariously.
New York: a girl with pointed nose and long hair looking east, standing behind a sack of coal. Anthracite, I reckon.
That’s enough similarities. Ed.
NB I wonder why so many of our suggestions are human or animal in form … ? Herr Rorschach ?
Comment by Hugh Everett (Manchester, UK) — November 10, 2008 @ 9:58 am
Dallas: An overweight Tibetan monk dancing flamenco
London: The German double-eagle doing a very enthusiastic karaoke version of YMCA.
Toronto: A dead skunk.
Chicago: Chinese lion dancers
Amsterdam: A small, fat and very hungry dog.
San Francisco: A rather sad elephant.
Comment by sungame — November 10, 2008 @ 12:00 pm
Boston looks like an Egyptian queen riding in a space ship (did I reveal what I think about StarGate in that).
Rome is what one would see if they looked out a window of a ten story building after a man just jumped out and landed on the street (perhaps I have said too much).
Comment by Rolland — November 10, 2008 @ 3:10 pm
apparently Dublin, Ireland has the same physical area as Paris despite only having one ninth of the population. There are few cities other than dublin where you can have a front and back garden within a few hundred metres of the city centre and still be considered poor!
Comment by Donal Quinn — November 10, 2008 @ 5:19 pm
@lurker
um… ALL of these maps would look different if they included suburbs that aren’t part of the central city!
Comment by Todd — November 10, 2008 @ 7:27 pm
To me:
New York looks like a pig riding a really fat bronco
Amsterdam is like a really tiny demon dog
Boston is a steam engine going down a steep hill
And Toronto is either a flying thing with its mouth open menacingly OR a man riding a tiny donkey (sideways)
Comment by Ezmerelda — November 10, 2008 @ 11:02 pm
Dallas has two holes in it, one hole are the cities of Highland and University Parks and the other is Cockrell Hill.
Houston has a hole in it that makes up the suburb of Bellaire and a couple of other cities.
Comment by Texcolo — November 11, 2008 @ 3:25 am
@ David (#3):
Right you are. My mistake. Correcting.
@ all:
Thanks for the additional info, and for your Rorschach visions. I recommend further treatment.
Comment by strangemaps — November 11, 2008 @ 5:45 am
My interpretation of the ink blots:
New York:
#1 Head of a dog
#2 Standing woman reading a newspaper
Dallas:
Presumably Black Caribean man with a messy haircut
Houston:
Badly dressed caveman
London:
Too many clothes on at the same time, almost a peacock
Montreal:
Bondaged man upside down. Upper extremities are feet, lower “extremities” are his screaming mouth.
Toronto:
A man on the floor having something to hit with in the left hand and something to get broken in the right hand.
Boston: A flying superdog
Amsterdam: A skunk with a upright tail
DC: A boot and nothing but a boot
San Francisco: A little elephant
Comment by Nodelescu — November 11, 2008 @ 6:50 am
Sydney would be… substantially larger than any of these. It’s about 5 times the area of Dallas.
Comment by Sean — November 11, 2008 @ 11:01 am
There are two different things being compared her. The map of London shows the contiguous built-up area, there are bits cut out for the Lee Valley, Richmond Park, Epping Forest, etc., and it seems to include built-up areas outside the Greater London Council (as it was in 1983) boundaries. The maps for Washington, Boston and San Francisco however seem to show only the official city authority area. This makes it pretty useless for comparison, and means that the populations quoted do not necessarily correspond to the areas shown.
Comment by j.rimmer — November 11, 2008 @ 11:21 am
[...] Checkout this interesting post of city maps that look like they could be used as Rorschach Tests at StrangeMaps – 327 City Maps as a Rorschach Test [...]
Pingback by Eric D. Colburn, Professional Land Surveyor » Checkout Strangemaps - 327 City Maps as a Rorschach Test — November 11, 2008 @ 12:17 pm
Looking at it again, Washington DC looks like a rook falling to the ground.
Comment by Ezmerelda — November 11, 2008 @ 1:49 pm
the shape of boston is way off.
looks like they filled in parts of the harbor and the mouth of the mystic river. logan airport in east boston is gone, even though back in 1983, there would still have been population in much of that area. part of south boston is gone too.
Comment by tommunist — November 11, 2008 @ 3:05 pm
http://www.bostonhousing.org/upload/BOSTON-MAP3c.jpg
Comment by tommunist — November 11, 2008 @ 3:05 pm
@tommunist
That link’s map still looks like an Egyptian queen flying a space ship to me, maybe even more so.
Comment by Rolland — November 11, 2008 @ 8:12 pm
I saw Bart Simpson too!
Comment by Epaminondas — November 12, 2008 @ 9:17 am
It took me several days, but I finally figured it out: Dallas looks like a plucked, headless, chicken.
Comment by Miguel Farah — November 13, 2008 @ 5:32 pm
[...] Retro Graph – Relative Sizes and Populations of Cities of the World from 1983 [...]
Pingback by 5 Visualizations for Your Inspiration [Nov 14] | Pointy Haired Dilbert - Chandoo.org — November 15, 2008 @ 1:38 am
Re: your point about Texas cities and geographic expansion,the reason for the municipal sprawl is the Texas Municipal Expansion act of 1963 (think that’s the proper name), which made it very easy for cities to annex contiguous land as it developed. No such luck for most cities in the Northeast.
Comment by Mercator — November 18, 2008 @ 4:37 am
[...] of Unfair Park Steve Z. sends this link to “the always interesting Strange Maps blog,” which, last week, offered “City [...]
Pingback by Dallas, Do the Rorschach | Clubs in Dallas — November 18, 2008 @ 8:48 pm
Dallas is bigger today, but it is also denser (and growing more so). Much of the southern end of the city, both then and now, is very, very rural in character, with active agriculture. Very rare for a modern American center city, but still happening. Also a lot of the city is a floodplain that can never be developed. Still the size difference is striking.
Comment by TGla323 — November 18, 2008 @ 9:35 pm
[...] 327 – City Maps As A Rorschach Test « Strange Maps :: [...]
Pingback by Present Tensed » Links/Articles Tagged Between November 13th and November 20th — November 26, 2008 @ 3:30 am
On Texas cities: I have noticed that the city limits of, e.g., El Paso and San Antonio are way out in the boonies. I’d assumed it had something to do with taxing future developments, but didn’t know about the Texas Municipal Expansion Act.
Comment by TexLex — January 10, 2009 @ 7:43 pm
NY- Scruff McGruff
Rome- Fat guy dancing in a chicken suit playing the Tenor Sax
Amsterdam- Scottie dog sniffing at something, about to be crushed by a boulder
Montreal- Jay Leno with a clothespin on his nose
Toronto- a slot hanging from a tree branch
Comment by DCmetrogreen — January 16, 2009 @ 9:09 pm
Toronto is a parakeet flying from left to right
And montreal is a cat trying desperately to scale a tilted wall
“small demon dog” is exactly right for amsterdam
cheers, that was fun
Comment by Violet — January 21, 2009 @ 11:28 pm
[...] that the Texan city has a large surface, a fact attested by a map posted earlier on this blog (#327), which also touches upon the phenomenon of sprawl (large conurbations with relatively low [...]
Pingback by 384 – Does My Metro Area Look Big in this Ring Road? « Strange Maps — May 25, 2009 @ 12:21 am
[...] 327 City Maps As A Rorschach Test Strange Maps Posted by root 14 minutes ago (http://strangemaps.wordpress.com) London a double headed eagle clubbed to death by an overweight angry texan caveman washington dc a moai statue as on easter island tilted downward to appear comment by the random one november 10 2008 2 50 am a front and back garden within a few hundred me Discuss | Bury | News | 327 City Maps As A Rorschach Test Strange Maps [...]
Pingback by 327 City Maps As A Rorschach Test Strange Maps | garden statues — June 14, 2009 @ 11:42 am
Vielen Dank
Comment by moon — July 3, 2009 @ 5:29 am
Muchas gracias
Comment by sun — July 4, 2009 @ 7:57 am