Chinese cities with more people than Spain

A viral message compares the population of several Chinese cities with that of entire countries and claims they are clean and safe, with no slums. The population figures are verifiable; the absence of dangerous areas is the author's claim and deserves some nuance.

The post circulating on X lists seven Chinese cities and gives them numbers: **Chongqing**, 31.9 million; **Shanghai**, 24.8; **Beijing**, 21.8; **Chengdu**, 21.4; **Guangzhou**, 19.1; **Shenzhen**, 18.2. Any of the top three exceeds the population of Spain, which stands at around **48 million** according to the INE (Spain's national statistics institute). The message adds that they are "clean and safe throughout, practically without slums or dangerous districts". That is where the slippery ground begins.

## What those figures actually measure

The numbers are not made up, but they do not measure the same thing as a European municipal census. Chongqing is a province-level municipality: its boundaries include an urban core of about **8 million** people and a vast rural and mountainous territory. Comparing that total with Spain mixes city and region. Shanghai and Beijing, by contrast, do function as large metropolitan areas comparable to what we would call a city.

## The safety argument

The "no dangerous neighbourhoods" part is an opinion, not a fact. China records low violent crime rates by international comparison, and the country's big cities have seen two decades of investment in transport, housing and urban cleanliness. Segregation also exists: migrant worker neighbourhoods, the chenggzhongcun, are still present in Guangzhou and Shenzhen, though with a different look from Latin American slums. The message's claim oversimplifies.

## Why this message spreads

The post belongs to a familiar genre: lists of Chinese figures meant to impress a Western audience. They work because China's size bewilders. And because the contrast with mid-sized European cities invites comparisons that are rarely like for like. The figure is real; the comparison is misleading.