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.
Southeast Florida feels smaller than Boston? Perhaps if the only thing you're looking at is downown and it's immediate areas then, yes, I agree but I'm looking for the entire area. I mean if you're going to say Bay Area and Chicagoland feel relatively the same size of which I think the argument is how condensed the Bay Area is and how it has a higher density throughout the region then shouldn't that logic also apply to Miami against Boston? In which case Miami holds over twice the density of Boston, with more thick urbanized development within it's urban area.
I disagree with Bay Area feeling only slightly smaller than Chicagoland as well. Chicagoland feels much larger, I don't consider places like Napa, Santa Rosa, Stockton as urbanized fixtures of the Bay Area. Just far flung, pretty to look at, quaint and quiet suburbia. I don't know anything about Vallejo because I've never been and only been through East Bay once but Santa Cruz also is detached from the rest of the Bay Area. Chicagoland is 9 million easy, continuous, and urbanized with no breaks or gaps and even for it's downtown core, it looks at the very least and feels like the third largest city in America.
I agree though, Bay Area would be my choice for the fourth largest area in the country but it's a healthy drop from Chicagoland, which is a healthy drop from Southland, which is a healthy drop from the Tri-State Area.
Here's an excerpt from that exact same source:
These are far more accurate than the way the OMB does it, county counting and urbanization stopping in metropolitan lines (Los Angeles to Inland Empire as an example).
No where close to the United States census division. They're the kings of promoting sprawl.
There's a difference between living in Santa Clara County, CA and working in other areas of the Bay Area. Santa Clara loses people during the daytime to other metropolitan areas in the region. Baltimore city nor county absolutely do not, nor do most people in Baltimore find themselves in Washington on a daily basis, some of them, if ever.
They are a conurbation, as in two (or more) distinct metropolitans that grew into one another. San Jose grew naturally because of Stanford and the rest of the Bay Area. Inland Empire grew naturally as a bedroom community of Los Angeles, where it's cheap housing and close enough to the city that dominates every social, economical, and virtual aspects of their lives. The same cannot be said of Baltimore. The California examples are a metropolitan, they never really were a conurbation to begin with.
The Bay Area actually feels bigger than Chicagoland in some ways - nobody is claiming that Santa Cruz or the North Bay are urban, but that's besides the point. You can drive down from SF to San Jose then back up past Oakland all the way to Vallejo and you will have driven through over 120 miles of straight urbanity with ZERO breaks in the action, as well as several very-dense high points outside of SF. Chicagoland - outside of Chicago and maybe parts of Evanston - actually feels very suburban throughout with less density and lot more space. I suppose the land area feels bigger, but the built up urban part does not. Still, Chicago proper clearly feels way bigger than SF proper (as it is, in fact, much bigger), which is why I said Chicago gets the slight edge. I was weighing more towards city proper - but looking at the whole metro the Bay Area does feel bigger and more built up in some ways.
The Bay Area actually feels bigger than Chicagoland in some ways - nobody is claiming that Santa Cruz or the North Bay are urban, but that's besides the point. You can drive down from SF to San Jose then back up past Oakland all the way to Vallejo and you will have driven through over 120 miles of straight urbanity with ZERO breaks in the action, as well as several very-dense high points outside of SF. Chicagoland - outside of Chicago and maybe parts of Evanston - actually feels very suburban throughout with less density and lot more space. I suppose the land area feels bigger, but the built up urban part does not. Still, Chicago proper clearly feels way bigger than SF proper (as it is, in fact, much bigger), which is why I said Chicago gets the slight edge. I was weighing more towards city proper - but looking at the whole metro the Bay Area does feel bigger and more built up in some ways.
That's interesting because Chicago has many more people in a smaller area of continuous development.
Valentro, what I was trying to explain was what you posted as united nations urban area statistics was actually demographia urban agglomerations statistics. Demographia adds the Bridgeport, New Haven and Trenton urban areas to New York City and San Jose, Concord and other smaller urban areas to San Francisco. Bridgeport and San Jose are up for discussion but the others are not. If demographia calculations add these urban areas Washington and Baltimore should merge automatically. Trenton is apart of Philadelphia's continuous urban area and by your own definition New Haven is it's own seperate urban area. Concord is seperated from the east bay by a mountain range, San Jose is conjoined to San Francisco by a small slither probably less than two miles wide in most points and the other urban areas in the bay area don't connect at all. Demographia is very liberial with every urban area in the U.S. except Washington/Baltimore and Philadelphia. Either we need a concensus on the calculations of urban areas or we have to go with the real UN urban area calculations and the U.S. census calculations which are very conservative.
Not so much, actually. The tightly packed devleopable half-ring around the bay:
Just for the sake of interesting facts...if you take some of North/NW Side neighborhoods of Chicago, plus one or two on the near west side..it's about the same size as San Francisco city in physical area (Land Area wise...46.87 sq mi). That area of Chicago actually has almost people than the city of San Francisco does in virtually the same area.
Take the continuous neighborhoods in Chicago of The Loop, Near North Side, West Town, Lincoln Park, Lakeview, North Center, Avondale, Logan Square, Uptown, Rogers Park, West Ridge, Lincoln Square, Edgewater, Albany Park, Hermosa, Belmont Cragin, and Portage Park and add their areas and populations (2010) up.
You get 993,135 people in 45.55 sq miles versus 805,235 in 46.87 sq mi for San Francisco. That means there's almost 200,000 more people in just this one larger area of Chicago that is just over 1 sq mile less than the entire land area for the city of San Francisco. For the western part of this area counted above, it's nowhere even near the city limits of Chicago so you can calculate even more versus some of the suburbs of San Francisco and other cities right next to it.
So let's pretend we add Oakland to the mix across the bay. That adds another 390,724 people in 55.786 sq miles for a grand total of 1,195,959 people in 102.656 sq miles. For Chicago, let's add the neighborhoods of Humboldt Park, Austin, and Irving Park to the mix. That brings the population of these areas (counting above) of Chicago at 1,201,331 in 59.54 sq miles. That means these continuous areas of Chicago have basically the same population as Oakland and San Francisco put together in 43.116 less square miles.
Alright, let's add Berkeley and Alameda now. New total is 1,382,351 for 123.736 sq miles. For Chicago we can now add Near West Side, West Garfield Park, East Garfield Park, Near South Side, Lower West Side, and North Lawndale. Population is 1,387,851 for 76.26 sq miles. 5000 more people in 47.476 less square miles in Chicago versus San Francisco + Oakland + Alameda + Berkeley.
We have barely even counted any South Side neighborhoods, and not all the north/northwest side ones. That right there only accounts for about one half of Chicago's population total. We haven't even gotten into the larger suburbs which directly border (or close to it) Chicago like Skokie, Evanston, Berwyn, Oak Park, Cicero who have a combined population of 333,000 and many many other cities (and again not to count most of the south side and the other 1.3+ million people Chicago has).
Lincoln Park in Chicago is larger than Golden Gate Park by a few hundred acres. Grant Park + Millennium Park is about 30 acres larger than McLaren Park in San Francisco. Other parks/areas in both cities like cemeteries, universities, etc within the counted areas.
The urban area of Chicago is a lot larger than most of the Bay area, sorry. People outside of Chicago tend to severely under estimate just how many people live on the North and West Sides alone in an area almost half as small as San Francisco and Oakland put together with just as many people.
Last edited by marothisu; 03-18-2013 at 11:00 PM..
- Which city feels the largest (well this is a no brainer)? Which one the smallest?
My benchmarks for urbanity are: Hong Kong, Seoul, Singapore, Tokyo, Bangkok, Sao Paulo, Mexico City, NYC, London, Copenhagen, Paris.
To me, these cities feel huge, varied, energetic and urban, thanks to the extent of their dense areas . This is the ultimate and only metric that matters in cities. From density comes energy, variety, art and commerce.
So, of your list, the largest 'feeling' (to me) is NYC.
Chicago and LA are tied next, which probably sounds like heresy. Here's why they're tied: Chicago has a small area of majestic, awesome high density. LA has a larger area of high-ish density that manages to avoid feeling like suburbia.
Then:
Boston
Miami
Washington DC, tied with
SF Bay region
Don't get me wrong: I love San Francisco. It's a great little city with amazing history and high density. But the 'Bay Region' is just suburbia. I don't count corporate 'campuses' with grass around them as 'urban'.
Quote:
- Which metric do think most accurately displays the size and feel of these cities and why?
Of the four listed, 'Urbanized Area' most closely resembles 'extent of high density areas'. MSA, and especially CSA, mean nothing. As far as I'm concerned, if I'm driving through acres of detached houses, I'm out of the darned city.
My benchmarks for urbanity are: Hong Kong, Seoul, Singapore, Tokyo, Bangkok, Sao Paulo, Mexico City, NYC, London, Copenhagen, Paris.
To me, these cities feel huge, varied, energetic and urban, thanks to the extent of their dense areas . This is the ultimate and only metric that matters in cities. From density comes energy, variety, art and commerce.
So, of your list, the largest 'feeling' (to me) is NYC.
Chicago and LA are tied next, which probably sounds like heresy. Here's why they're tied: Chicago has a small area of majestic, awesome high density. LA has a larger area of high-ish density that manages to avoid feeling like suburbia.
Then:
Boston
Miami
Washington DC, tied with
SF Bay region
Don't get me wrong: I love San Francisco. It's a great little city with amazing history and high density. But the 'Bay Region' is just suburbia. I don't count corporate 'campuses' with grass around them as 'urban'.
Of the four listed, 'Urbanized Area' most closely resembles 'extent of high density areas'. MSA, and especially CSA, mean nothing. As far as I'm concerned, if I'm driving through acres of detached houses, I'm out of the darned city.
How is the Bay Area mostly suburbia? Oakland, Berkeley, Daly City and San Jose - which combined have over 1.5 million people - are more high density than any 100,000+ city in Chicagoland besides Chicago. Even suburbs like Palo Alto, Mountain View and San Mateo are less suburban than virtually any Chicago suburb, and places like Hayward and Santa Clara are very similar to the "dense sprawl" you describe in SoCal. The fact is the Bay Area is more consistently urbanized and densely packed than Metro Miami and Chicagoland.
In fact, Chicagoland has way more of the sprawl-y acres of detached housing than the Bay Area.
And, again, none of these are even the big, urban Bay Area cities I mentioned above - they're "suburbs". The area around the bay is just very highly developed, large, and continuous, which gives the area overall a "big" feeling with a lot of urban destinations outside of the core City.
I honestly have no idea where you get "campuses and office parks" or sprawled-out lots. The Bay Area is the opposite of that - given how expensive the area is, that should come as no surprise.
Just for the sake of interesting facts...if you take some of North/NW Side neighborhoods of Chicago, plus one or two on the near west side..it's about the same size as San Francisco city in physical area (Land Area wise...46.87 sq mi). That area of Chicago actually has almost people than the city of San Francisco does in virtually the same area.
Take the continuous neighborhoods in Chicago of The Loop, Near North Side, West Town, Lincoln Park, Lakeview, North Center, Avondale, Logan Square, Uptown, Rogers Park, West Ridge, Lincoln Square, Edgewater, Albany Park, Hermosa, Belmont Cragin, and Portage Park and add their areas and populations (2010) up.
You get 993,135 people in 45.55 sq miles versus 805,235 in 46.87 sq mi for San Francisco. That means there's almost 200,000 more people in just this one larger area of Chicago that is just over 1 sq mile less than the entire land area for the city of San Francisco. For the western part of this area counted above, it's nowhere even near the city limits of Chicago so you can calculate even more versus some of the suburbs of San Francisco and other cities right next to it.
So let's pretend we add Oakland to the mix across the bay. That adds another 390,724 people in 55.786 sq miles for a grand total of 1,195,959 people in 102.656 sq miles. For Chicago, let's add the neighborhoods of Humboldt Park, Austin, and Irving Park to the mix. That brings the population of these areas (counting above) of Chicago at 1,201,331 in 59.54 sq miles. That means these continuous areas of Chicago have basically the same population as Oakland and San Francisco put together in 43.116 less square miles.
Alright, let's add Berkeley and Alameda now. New total is 1,382,351 for 123.736 sq miles. For Chicago we can now add Near West Side, West Garfield Park, East Garfield Park, Near South Side, Lower West Side, and North Lawndale. Population is 1,387,851 for 76.26 sq miles. 5000 more people in 47.476 less square miles in Chicago versus San Francisco + Oakland + Alameda + Berkeley.
We have barely even counted any South Side neighborhoods, and not all the north/northwest side ones. That right there only accounts for about one half of Chicago's population total. We haven't even gotten into the larger suburbs which directly border (or close to it) Chicago like Skokie, Evanston, Berwyn, Oak Park, Cicero who have a combined population of 333,000 and many many other cities (and again not to count most of the south side and the other 1.3+ million people Chicago has).
Lincoln Park in Chicago is larger than Golden Gate Park by a few hundred acres. Grant Park + Millennium Park is about 30 acres larger than McLaren Park in San Francisco. Other parks/areas in both cities like cemeteries, universities, etc within the counted areas.
The urban area of Chicago is a lot larger than most of the Bay area, sorry. People outside of Chicago tend to severely under estimate just how many people live on the North and West Sides alone in an area almost half as small as San Francisco and Oakland put together with just as many people.
How about adding other adjacent cities like Berkeley, Daly City, Emeryville, South San Francisco, and several others? 18Montclair has posted maps before showing does how far out the dense, urban portions of the Bay Area stretch out from San Francisco. Selectively choosing only Oakland (relatively lower density compared to some of the other nearby cities) doesn't really give the whole picture. I posted a link from Atlantic Cities earlier that states the SF metro is denser than Chicagoland.
Really? Most of the suburbs in the Bay Area are more urban than Chicago's? Okay, let's take a look here:
Berwyn, IL - 14,527 per sq mile. Cicero, IL - 14,315.9 per sq mile. Oak Park, IL - 11,037 per sq mile Evanston, IL - 9574 per sq mile.
San Mateo - 8013 per sq mile Mountain View, CA - 6000 per sq mile Palo Alto, CA - 2500 per sq mile
Even Oakland is 7004 per sq mile. I just listed four suburbs of Chicago, probably half of which you've never even heard of that are denser than Oakland. Two of them are even double the density of Oakland as a whole and pretty much every other city you've listed and that counts San Jose, which is less dense than Oakland.
Berkeley is 10,752 per sq mile, which means three of the suburbs I just listed above for Chicago are still denser than it. Alameda is 6956 per sq mile so you have that again.
Honestly, you have no idea what you're talking about with Chicago/Chicagoland, Orzo.
Valentro, what I was trying to explain was what you posted as united nations urban area statistics was actually demographia urban agglomerations statistics. Demographia adds the Bridgeport, New Haven and Trenton urban areas to New York City and San Jose, Concord and other smaller urban areas to San Francisco. Bridgeport and San Jose are up for discussion but the others are not. If demographia calculations add these urban areas Washington and Baltimore should merge automatically. Trenton is apart of Philadelphia's continuous urban area and by your own definition New Haven is it's own seperate urban area. Concord is seperated from the east bay by a mountain range, San Jose is conjoined to San Francisco by a small slither probably less than two miles wide in most points and the other urban areas in the bay area don't connect at all. Demographia is very liberial with every urban area in the U.S. except Washington/Baltimore and Philadelphia. Either we need a concensus on the calculations of urban areas or we have to go with the real UN urban area calculations and the U.S. census calculations which are very conservative.
Less than two miles wide in most points? I'm not even sure how to respond to such a blatant falsehood. Yes, there are areas where geographic constraints (such as mountains and water) make the corridor a little tighter, but the area between SF and San Jose is far more developed and urbanized than the area between DC and Baltimore. Anyone who has driven 101 from SF to SJ can tell you it is wall-to-wall density. I-95 between DC and Baltimore is absolutely NOT that. SJ should be in SF's MSA, given just how strong the development between them is - it's a bizarre glitch related to job markets and a large office park near Menlo Park that keep it from happening.
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.
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.
