Smaller Metros That Stack Up To Larger Mertros (crime, bigger, Atlanta)

[caphillsea77]

A lot of Canadian cities seem to feel a lot bigger than they really are.

Montreal has a metro area of 3.8 million and it definitely feels more cosmopolitan and sophisticated than Atlanta metro at 5.3 million and Phoenix metro at 4.1 million

Vancouver at 2.3 million metro population I think stacks up well against and exceeds in urban ambiance moreso than these metros listed -
Minneapolis: 3.3 million
San Diego: 3.1 milion
Tampa Bay: 2.7 million.
Though Vancouver is uniquely situated as the sole Paciifc Rim gateway city in Canada lending itself to more international influences. It's also wedge between the mountains, the US border, and the sea so with limited space it's naturally a very densely populated metro area.

Toronto can certainly compete well with Dallas/Fort Worth, and in some ways Chicago
Toronto: 5.6 million
Dallas: 6.4 million
Chicago: 9.4 million

Calgary at 1.2 million competes well over these metros also in the 1.2 - 1.4 million bracket
Jacksonville
Memphis
Louisville
Richmond
Oklahoma City
Hartford

[brewcrew1000]

In Terms of Business/Economy I think Omaha stacks up nicely and exceeds larger metros like Memphis, Jacksonville, New Orleans

[rnc2mbfl]

I think I need a better definition of "stack up" to answer this question. That said, I am sure there are many smaller metros that stack up against larger ones based on certain criteria/metrics, etc.

[Stars&StripesForever]

Originally Posted by caphillsea77

Montreal has a metro area of 3.8 million and it definitely feels more cosmopolitan and sophisticated than Atlanta metro at 5.3 million and Phoenix metro at 4.1 million

Really?

Both region maps are to the same-scale. Urbanized/Built-Up area is in red.

Montreal

http://i.imgur.com/WfPJ0.jpg

Atlanta

http://i.imgur.com/hB2C9.jpg


Atlanta Skyline
http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/2842/p1011281ik5.jpg (broken link)

Montreal Skyline


You obviously have never been to Atlanta to say something so dumb.

[Chicago76]

^What you're ignoring is the density of both and the urban feel you get when you're constantly in that environment. Atlanta's urbanized area is larger in population but much, much larger in land area.

Montreal's urbanized area is almost 3 times as dense. In US terms, the only UAs that are more dense are: the Bay Area, LA, and New Orleans (pre-Katrina). People are surprised when New York isn't on that list, but this is due to the fact that the outlying areas contain a lot of large lot development. LA for example, is more consistently dense, hence the higher average.

Another way to look at this to avoid the New York-LA issue is to look at the most dense areas of a urban area. Montreal's most dense boroughs contain 20,000 to 35,000 people per square mile. Atlanta's neighborhoods don't come close to this.

Yet another way to look at it is their mass transit ridership and systems:

Montreal's Metro is the third busiest rail system in North America, behind only NYC and Mexico City. 1.1 million people ride the system every workday. It is 43 miles long w/ 68 stops.

Marta's rail serves 250K per workday. The system is 48 miles long w/ 38 stops.

I've spent time in both cities, and it's pretty obvious that Montreal feels much more urban and cosmopolitan when you walk around various parts of both regions.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by Relegate

Sorry, but it just doesn't work to pull out the Censues defined San Francisco Metro. The Bay Area - culturally, economically, by TV Market, and by continuous urban area - is clearly one metro with over 7.5 million people. That's why it can compete with those metros you mentioned and other true 4.5 million metros (like Phoenix and Seattle) cannot.

How is the half-circle around the bay not one metro?



http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/...030e015724.jpg

What a stunning pic.

[Stars&StripesForever]

Originally Posted by Chicago76

^What you're ignoring is the density of both and the urban feel you get when you're constantly in that environment. Atlanta's urbanized area is larger in population but much, much larger in land area.

Montreal's urbanized area is almost 3 times as dense. In US terms, the only UAs that are more dense are: the Bay Area, LA, and New Orleans (pre-Katrina). People are surprised when New York isn't on that list, but this is due to the fact that the outlying areas contain a lot of large lot development. LA for example, is more consistently dense, hence the higher average.

Another way to look at this to avoid the New York-LA issue is to look at the most dense areas of a urban area. Montreal's most dense boroughs contain 20,000 to 35,000 people per square mile. Atlanta's neighborhoods don't come close to this.

Yet another way to look at it is their mass transit ridership and systems:

Montreal's Metro is the third busiest rail system in North America, behind only NYC and Mexico City. 1.1 million people ride the system every workday. It is 43 miles long w/ 68 stops.

Marta's rail serves 250K per workday. The system is 48 miles long w/ 38 stops.

I've spent time in both cities, and it's pretty obvious that Montreal feels much more urban and cosmopolitan when you walk around various parts of both regions.

I suppose if you only walk around a region, one could get a certain feel in those specific areas. However, metropolitan regions are regions. They aren't confined to a two mile by three mile area, or whatever constrains you're trying to place them in.

Atlanta is a behemoth. To put a small metropolitan area, land-wise, above Atlanta is beyond stupid. Atlanta is one of the world's largest urbanized areas, built-up area wise. Atlanta also has over two million more people than Montreal.

You can talk density, and I'll agree with you that Montreal's developed area is more dense than Atlanta's developed area on the whole. However, this does not mean that Atlanta's developed area does not feel urban or that it feels rural. I sincerely say this. Only a handful of metropolitan areas in the United States even feel as large as Atlanta. New York City is bigger. Los Angeles is bigger. Chicago is slightly bigger. Dallas and Houston are very similar, while Detroit, SF Bay area, and Philadelphia feel slightly smaller.

[annie_himself]

Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever

I suppose if you only walk around a region, one could get a certain feel in those specific areas. However, metropolitan regions are regions. They aren't confined to a two mile by three mile area, or whatever constrains you're trying to place them in.

Atlanta is a behemoth. To put a small metropolitan area, land-wise, above Atlanta is beyond stupid. Atlanta is one of the world's largest urbanized areas, built-up area wise. Atlanta also has over two million more people than Montreal.

You can talk density, and I'll agree with you that Montreal's developed area is more dense than Atlanta's developed area on the whole. However, this does not mean that Atlanta's developed area does not feel urban or that it feels rural. I sincerely say this. Only a handful of metropolitan areas in the United States even feel as large as Atlanta. New York City is bigger. Los Angeles is bigger. Chicago is slightly bigger. Dallas and Houston are very similar, while Detroit, SF Bay area, and Philadelphia feel slightly smaller.

Montreal feels bigger to him, as it probably does to many others, get over it.

[MDAllstar]

This picture from space shows everything from New York-Philly-Baltimore-Washington D.C.-Richmond, and Norfolk.

http://www.ouramazingplanet.com/imag...jpg?1320171307

[CaliSon]

Originally Posted by MDAllstar

This picture from space shows everything from New York-Philly-Baltimore-Washington D.C.-Richmond, and Norfolk.

http://www.ouramazingplanet.com/imag...jpg?1320171307

looks like massive sprawl to me