Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-28-2012, 11:41 AM
 
Location: Mishawaka, Indiana
7,010 posts, read 11,972,699 times
Reputation: 5813

Advertisements

Question is, why is the population of some cities relatively low and yet they have HUGE metro populations where on the other hand some cities have fairly large city populations and small metro populations. Here are some examples I've come across.

1. Indianapolis - 827,000 Metro population - 1.7 million
2. Atlanta - 420,000 Metro population - 5.2 million
3. Columbus - 787,000 Metro population - 1.8 million
4. Baltimore - 620,000 Metro population - 2.7 million
5. Louisville - 602,000 Metro population - 1.4 million
6. Seattle - 620,000 Metro population - 3.5 million

Do you see the trend? Most of these cities are about the same size in city population, some smaller, but have MUCH larger metro populations. What causes this?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-28-2012, 11:47 AM
 
Location: The City
22,378 posts, read 38,910,924 times
Reputation: 7976
pretty simple. Land area boundaries and places that either annexed or didnt

In many ways city populkation size is really not that indicative of how large a metro is


Look at Jax versus Atlanta
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2012, 12:43 PM
 
Location: Mishawaka, Indiana
7,010 posts, read 11,972,699 times
Reputation: 5813
So why do some cities get land boundaries and such annexed and others don't? It seems a larger city would have more money to put in its coffers, so its in their best interest to grow the city population over the metropopulation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2012, 12:46 PM
 
932 posts, read 1,944,511 times
Reputation: 553
Atlanta's metro still perplexes me. It's like 200 bagillion square miles. I don't quite understand.

I'm surprised you left Pittsburgh off your list, city pop ~300k, metro pop 2.1m+
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2012, 12:55 PM
 
Location: Mishawaka, Indiana
7,010 posts, read 11,972,699 times
Reputation: 5813
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTA88 View Post
Atlanta's metro still perplexes me. It's like 200 bagillion square miles. I don't quite understand.

I'm surprised you left Pittsburgh off your list, city pop ~300k, metro pop 2.1m+
Well there are a lot more cities I could have done, I just did a few to show the differences. Cleveland and Cincinatti and St. Louis are some other ones, and then Newark and Boston are others.

But yes, Atlanta's metro is massive, one of the largest in the U.S. but its City population is probably ranked 70th or so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2012, 04:13 PM
 
Location: South Beach and DT Raleigh
13,966 posts, read 24,156,607 times
Reputation: 14762
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdAilment View Post
Well there are a lot more cities I could have done, I just did a few to show the differences. Cleveland and Cincinatti and St. Louis are some other ones, and then Newark and Boston are others.

But yes, Atlanta's metro is massive, one of the largest in the U.S. but its City population is probably ranked 70th or so.
These things are easy to validate. Atlanta proper is 40th.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2012, 08:47 PM
 
Location: Mishawaka, Indiana
7,010 posts, read 11,972,699 times
Reputation: 5813
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnc2mbfl View Post
These things are easy to validate. Atlanta proper is 40th.
Regardless, that's besides the point. Atlanta has one of the largest metro populations in the country and they are ranked 40th in the city proper.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2012, 09:01 PM
 
Location: Sault Ste. Marie, MI
302 posts, read 769,211 times
Reputation: 464
When they grew into major cities has a lot to do with it. A lot of cities in the Midwest and Northeast had their city populations peak in the 1950 census. Philadelphia (2,071,506 in 1950, 1,526,006 today), Detroit (1,849,568 in 1950, 706,585 today), Baltimore (949,708 in 1950, 619,493 today), Cleveland (914,808 in 1950, 393,806 today) and Pittsburgh (676,806 in 1950, 307,484 today) would be examples. Starting in the 50's their populations expanded into the suburbs, so The metro populations of these cities are just as much a reflection of their past population heights as their current populations. Metros that have developed more recently have more of their population concentrated in their core city, because they didn't experience the flight to the suburbs of the Post WWII years that the older cities did.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2012, 09:08 PM
 
7,132 posts, read 9,133,368 times
Reputation: 6338
Atlanta is only like 149 square miles or so...not sure the exact size. If it were Dallas or Houston size, it would probably have over one million residents too, so city limits is a big factors. This is why most studies, firms, etc use metro sizes vs city proper sizes.

Atlanta is not very dense either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2012, 09:14 PM
 
Location: Portsmouth, VA
6,509 posts, read 8,450,768 times
Reputation: 3822
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdAilment View Post
Well there are a lot more cities I could have done, I just did a few to show the differences. Cleveland and Cincinatti and St. Louis are some other ones, and then Newark and Boston are others.

But yes, Atlanta's metro is massive, one of the largest in the U.S. but its City population is probably ranked 70th or so.
In the case of cities like Cleveland and Detroit, flight may have a lot to do with it. Not that suburbs did not exist before the crime wave, but those crime waves did help to boost their populations a bit during the 80s and 90s. These days though the crime is out in the suburbs and the cities are a lot safer than they used to be. Plus, suburban areas are just as urban as their respective cities, particularly out in Texas or Illinois.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top