Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
i would think that Milwaukee is larger than Columbus in its MSA. Last time I checked it had over 2 million people.
I knew someone would try to call me out on it...that's why I said "off the top of my head"...so I looked it up this evening.
Columbus is indeed ahead of Milwaukee's MSA.
COlumbus in at #29, Milwaukee at #32...Columbus has 1.9M, Milwaukee 1.7M
I didnt check the rest...but the last half are all fairly close to each other, so I apologize if I get some mixed up...but I think for the most part my MSA size rankings are accurate.
It should also be noted that St. Louis City as a whole has a lot of things that most other Midwestern cities do not have. It has a significantly large Midtown which is growing, which I essentially consider close enough to downtown to be considered downtown extended, and right behind Midtown is the Central West End, and then just 4 miles west of the central west end is Downtown Clayton. St. Louis has one of the largest Midtowns I've ever seen. Midtown Cleveland's midtown is NOTHING compared to it, although it does have Lakewood and Akron. All Indy has is its downtown. St. Louis and Cleveland feature multiple skylines, and Downtown St. Louis has many future projects which could significantly increase its population if built...the Ballpark Village, a complex of office and condo towers and retail space, is expected to begin its first phase of construction this year. The Bottle District is also expected to finally begin groundbreaking later this year. St. Louis City has MANY proposals which have already been approved...so really...you can't make a joke out of St. Louis for much longer. As a metro, you can't make a joke about it period. I don't know about anyone else, but I just think it makes a whole lot more sense to represent a city by its metro area....not just the city itself. It's like comparing Minneapolis to Chicago and pretending that St. Paul, which is literally right across the river and obviously essentially the same city and is virtually family to Minneapolis, does not exist. The same thing is with St. Louis..it's like pretending St. Louis County, whose easternmost point is just 6 miles from downtown, does not exist.
ajf131 - very good, insightful, and hopefully helpful post!
however,,, just a note of caution - by the same token, using your argument of expanding the area to include not just the downtown, but the surrounding areas, even those areas that might be on the other side of a river, ummmm,,,
It's like comparing Minneapolis to Chicago and pretending that St. Paul, which is literally right across the river and obviously essentially the same city and is virtually family to Minneapolis, does not exist. The same thing is with St. Louis..it's like pretending St. Louis County, whose easternmost point is just 6 miles from downtown, does not exist.
St. Paul is not essentially the same city as Minneapolis. They are very different cities. Culture, nightlife, activities, downtowns are all different between the cities. I get what you are saying about representing a city by its metro area but in the case of the Twin Cities I think it is better to seperate the two when comparing them to other cities. I could point out tons of similarites between Minneapolis and Chicago. But Chicago and St. Paul? No way.
ajf131 - very good, insightful, and hopefully helpful post!
however,,, just a note of caution - by the same token, using your argument of expanding the area to include not just the downtown, but the surrounding areas, even those areas that might be on the other side of a river, ummmm,,,
I know...should've been more careful about that one....when dealing with St. Louis, stick strictly to the Missouri side The difference with the Twin Cities is that they are both in Minnesota. St. Louis is in Missouri, not Illinois, even though the Metro East is considered part of the metro area. If East St. Louis were in Missouri, you could bet millions it would be in better shape....East St. Louis and St. Louis while in the same metro area are run by two different states.
Detroit, since I attend WSU and love the area, downtown. then chicago since it's a nice city, and I grew up in the chicago area. the rest I couldn't careless about.
St. Paul is not essentially the same city as Minneapolis. They are very different cities. Culture, nightlife, activities, downtowns are all different between the cities. I get what you are saying about representing a city by its metro area but in the case of the Twin Cities I think it is better to seperate the two when comparing them to other cities. I could point out tons of similarites between Minneapolis and Chicago. But Chicago and St. Paul? No way.
This Twin Citizen could not agree with you more, sonicman. It does get tough to define which city some of the suburbs are, such as Burnsville and Apple Valley, but then that reflects the ubiquity, anonymity and blandness of suburbs. There is cross-commuting between the cities and many go to Mpls to see the T-wolves play but to St Paul to see the Wild play, or to Mpls to see one Broadway production but to St. Paul to see another one. But ask any citizen of either city where they are from and they will name the city. Ask a suburbanite and they'll say just "Minnesota", "Twin Cities", or a few may say "Minneapolis".
Akron and Cleveland are farther away from each other through,and theres areas bettween them that are other suburbs,I thought St. Paul was like 7 miles from MNPLS.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.