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.
As for the size of Raleigh, its MSA is about 1.2 million but that doesn't reflect the truth about how the overall metro operates. Though immediately adjacent to each other (they actually touch) and despite the fact that both Raleigh and Durham extend slightly into each other's county, the two cities are reported as separate MSAs, only to be recombined into a CSA of 2 million. This means that the Triangle is actually more populated than Nashville's primary census statistical area and about 375,000 short of Kansas City's.
As for your presumption that I am insecure, think whatever you want to think.....it's your right and it's not important enough to me to worry about.
In that case you could throw in Clarksville's MSA which would still make Nashville's CSA larger than Raleigh's combined CSA of 2 million. You are really reaching here just to make a point that Raleigh compares to larger cities such as Kansas City and Nashville. It is a great city, but it doesn't offer nearly the attractions, nightlife, or diversity of housing options, shopping, or restaurants that Nashville or Kansas City offers. Nashville has extra-regional influences reaching into Kentucky (Bowling Green, Murray, Hopkinsville, Paducah), Alabama (Huntsville/Decatur), and to a lesser extent Southern Illinois. Many visitors come from those areas to use the airport, eat, shop, enjoy professional sports, attend college, and visit the area's numerous attractions. Kansas City is large, historic, urban, and offers big city attractions, many things for families to do, even more than Nashville, although Nashville's attractions are more well known.
In that case you could throw in Clarksville's MSA which would still make Nashville's CSA larger than Raleigh's combined CSA of 2 million. You are really reaching here just to make a point that Raleigh compares to larger cities such as Kansas City and Nashville. It is a great city, but it doesn't offer nearly the attractions, nightlife, or diversity of housing options, shopping, or restaurants that Nashville or Kansas City offers. Nashville has extra-regional influences reaching into Kentucky (Bowling Green, Murray, Hopkinsville, Paducah), Alabama (Huntsville/Decatur), and to a lesser extent Southern Illinois. Many visitors come from those areas to use the airport, eat, shop, enjoy professional sports, attend college, and visit the area's numerous attractions. Kansas City is large, historic, urban, and offers big city attractions, many things for families to do, even more than Nashville, although Nashville's attractions are more well known.
Good post. It's funny how defensive people are getting. While Raleigh has an impressive regional population, the city and metro and region just does not offer the same amenities as Nashville or KC. Raleigh does not have a large city feel to it at all. I would compare it to Wichita or Mobile or Grand Rapids. When you visit Raleigh, it does not feel like you are in a major (or even mid sized major) city like KC or Nashville does nor does it offer anywhere near the culture and attractions.
Here are the size differences. But again, I just don't think the Raleigh area feels or acts like a metro of 2 million. It's a fast growing and relatively populated region though.
Kansas City
CSA 2.4 million
MSA 2.1 million
Nashville
CSA 1.9 million
MSA 1.7 million
Raleigh
CSA 2 million
MSA 1.2 million
And while I stand by my opinion that there is quite a bit more to do in KC than Nashville, I don't think people in Nashville have anything to be ashamed about. If you ask ten people in america which city they would prefer to visit, KC or Nashville, I would bet you that 9 out of ten of them would choose Nashville.
Nashville has a strong identity and whether you like country music or not, I think the city generally gets more respect than KC as a place to live and visit. KC really has no image at all, but any image it does have is generally tied to stereotypes of "Kansas" even though metro KC is simply nothing like those stereotypes.
One of the first cities I wanted to visit out of high school was Nashville. It's a nice city.
Raleigh/Durham is pretty underwhelming for its regional population. But you have to understand the area is relatively new and it does not have the same established large historic urban center that Nashville and especially KC has. KC has been a large city for a long time, long before it even had suburbs. So it has had many more decades to build up a very impressive collection of cultural assets and regional attractions despite the metro actually losing a lot of ground to other major metros population wise over the past 50 years.
Metro Raleigh is no slouch in the next several decades it's probably going to drastically improve, but right now, it's not up there with KC or Nashville in many comparisons other than economy.
Metro Raleigh is no slouch in the next several decades it's probably going to drastically improve, but right now, it's not up there with KC or Nashville in many comparisons other than economy.
I will say this about Raleigh -- I think in terms of raising kids and education, it does extremely well and arguably a bit better than Kansas City or Nashville. Good public schools, and a trio of excellent universities (if one wanted to stay close to home).
In that case you could throw in Clarksville's MSA which would still make Nashville's CSA larger than Raleigh's combined CSA of 2 million. You are really reaching here just to make a point that Raleigh compares to larger cities such as Kansas City and Nashville. It is a great city, but it doesn't offer nearly the attractions, nightlife, or diversity of housing options, shopping, or restaurants that Nashville or Kansas City offers. Nashville has extra-regional influences reaching into Kentucky (Bowling Green, Murray, Hopkinsville, Paducah), Alabama (Huntsville/Decatur), and to a lesser extent Southern Illinois. Many visitors come from those areas to use the airport, eat, shop, enjoy professional sports, attend college, and visit the area's numerous attractions. Kansas City is large, historic, urban, and offers big city attractions, many things for families to do, even more than Nashville, although Nashville's attractions are more well known.
Raleigh-Durham was one MSA until 2003 when it was split in two. I don't think that one has to "reach" to describe it as one metro since the only thing that changed in 2003 was the designation of two MSAs by the OMB. Metropolitan areas are described as MSA, CSAs and for comparative sake, PSAs. The PSA designation compares the highest level of metro population for all areas. This allows CSA & MSA comparison together for the few MSAs in the US that don't have a CSA.
The Raleigh MSA is three counties, and besides Raleigh's county (Wake), only includes the two counties to the east. The immediate counties to the west now belong to Durham's MSA. Oddly enough, that which unifies the Triangle (Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill) into one functioning metro area straddles the (now) two MSAs. I'm referring to Research Triangle Park. It's about 65% in Durham County and 35% in Wake County. Because of the draw to RTP over the last 5 decades, an enormous amount of development has pushed toward RTP from both Raleigh and Durham. Despite the imbalance of "The Park" area tilting toward Durham County, Wake County has seen the lion's share of the growth over the decades. To systematically ignore and discount the reality of how the area functions in order to "prove" how much smaller Raleigh is is ludicrous.
Since this is City-Data, here is some data to consider based on the municipal, urban, MSA & CSA OMB designations of both Nashville and Raleigh. Make of it what you will but I fail to see how these are not peer areas when it comes to size.
Municipal Population and land area as of 2012 + other municipalities over 50,000 within OMB definitions and their distance to core city by Google maps shortest route as default measured from center of city to center of city.
* Nashville: 624,496 in 475.13 s.m. of land
* Murfreesboro: 114,038 (33.9 miles)
* Franklin: 66,280 (21.9 miles)
* Hendersonville: 53,080 (16.9 miles)
* Raleigh: 423,179 in 142.9 square miles of land
* Durham: 239,358 (22.5 miles)
* Cary: 145,693 (8.7 miles)
* Chapel Hill: 58,424 (28.1 miles)
MSA Population and land area as of 2012:
* Nashville-Murfreesboro: 1,726,693 in 7484 s.m. of land
* Raleigh: 1,188,564 in 2148 s.m. of land * Durham-Chapel Hill: 522,826 in 1812 s.m. of land
CSA (and PSA) Population and land area as of 2012:
* Nashville-Davidson-Mufreesboro CSA: 1,845,235 in 8950 s.m. of land
* Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill CSA: 1,998,808 in 5627 s.m. of land
Urbanized Area Population and land area as of 2010:
*Nashville-Davidson: 969,587 in 563 s.m. *Murfreesboro: 133,228 in 77.3 s.m. *Clarksville: 158,655 in 109.6 s.m. Putting it in based on your post even though it's not part of any OMB definition of greater Nashville. I am not adding any others to Raleigh though there are towns within that same distance that are not included in any of this data.
*Raleigh: 884,891 in 518.1 s.m. *Durham: 347,602 in 181.7 s.m.
In the end, the Triangle has 150,000 more people in its CSA on 3323 less s.m. of land area. In fact, the Triangle's entire CSA is in much less land area than just Nashville's MSA. Each city has 3 other municipalities over 50,000 in its CSA but the ones in the Triangle are closer to Raleigh than the ones in Nashville are. On top of all this, Raleigh is growing more rapidly.
The land area comparisons for most metros end up being apples and oranges. Nashville covers 475 square miles of land, but more than 80% of the population is contained in 40% of the land area.
I think we're getting off track with the population comparisons, anyways (well, OK, most of this thread has been off topic). The OP said nothing about the size of the cities...but where would be a good place to raise a family.
Raleigh-Durham was one MSA until 2003 when it was split in two. I don't think that one has to "reach" to describe it as one metro since the only thing that changed in 2003 was the designation of two MSAs by the OMB. Metropolitan areas are described as MSA, CSAs and for comparative sake, PSAs. The PSA designation compares the highest level of metro population for all areas. This allows CSA & MSA comparison together for the few MSAs in the US that don't have a CSA.
The Raleigh MSA is three counties, and besides Raleigh's county (Wake), only includes the two counties to the east. The immediate counties to the west now belong to Durham's MSA. Oddly enough, that which unifies the Triangle (Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill) into one functioning metro area straddles the (now) two MSAs. I'm referring to Research Triangle Park. It's about 65% in Durham County and 35% in Wake County. Because of the draw to RTP over the last 5 decades, an enormous amount of development has pushed toward RTP from both Raleigh and Durham. Despite the imbalance of "The Park" area tilting toward Durham County, Wake County has seen the lion's share of the growth over the decades. To systematically ignore and discount the reality of how the area functions in order to "prove" how much smaller Raleigh is is ludicrous.
Since this is City-Data, here is some data to consider based on the municipal, urban, MSA & CSA OMB designations of both Nashville and Raleigh. Make of it what you will but I fail to see how these are not peer areas when it comes to size.
Municipal Population and land area as of 2012 + other municipalities over 50,000 within OMB definitions and their distance to core city by Google maps shortest route as default measured from center of city to center of city.
* Nashville: 624,496 in 475.13 s.m. of land
* Murfreesboro: 114,038 (33.9 miles)
* Franklin: 66,280 (21.9 miles)
* Hendersonville: 53,080 (16.9 miles)
* Raleigh: 423,179 in 142.9 square miles of land
* Durham: 239,358 (22.5 miles)
* Cary: 145,693 (8.7 miles)
* Chapel Hill: 58,424 (28.1 miles)
MSA Population and land area as of 2012:
* Nashville-Murfreesboro: 1,726,693 in 7484 s.m. of land
* Raleigh: 1,188,564 in 2148 s.m. of land * Durham-Chapel Hill: 522,826 in 1812 s.m. of land
CSA (and PSA) Population and land area as of 2012:
* Nashville-Davidson-Mufreesboro CSA: 1,845,235 in 8950 s.m. of land
* Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill CSA: 1,998,808 in 5627 s.m. of land
Urbanized Area Population and land area as of 2010:
*Nashville-Davidson: 969,587 in 563 s.m. *Murfreesboro: 133,228 in 77.3 s.m. *Clarksville: 158,655 in 109.6 s.m. Putting it in based on your post even though it's not part of any OMB definition of greater Nashville. I am not adding any others to Raleigh though there are towns within that same distance that are not included in any of this data.
*Raleigh: 884,891 in 518.1 s.m. *Durham: 347,602 in 181.7 s.m.
In the end, the Triangle has 150,000 more people in its CSA on 3323 less s.m. of land area. In fact, the Triangle's entire CSA is in much less land area than just Nashville's MSA. Each city has 3 other municipalities over 50,000 in its CSA but the ones in the Triangle are closer to Raleigh than the ones in Nashville are. On top of all this, Raleigh is growing more rapidly.
You're still reaching and off topic. The OP wanted to know which was the best to raise a family. Why is Raleigh better than Nashville or Kansas City?
For "raising a family" there is no real difference.
All 3 will have plenty of options for good public schools in their metros, heavily slanted towards affluent suburban schools for performance. All have Parks, hiking, camping, lakes, museums, stuff to do, etc. The weather in all 3 is pretty comparable. The size of all 3 is at least in the same wheelhouse.
Choose the one closest to or most accessible for your extended family if your primary concern is raising your children. Barring that, choose the one in the region you like the best.
You're still reaching and off topic. The OP wanted to know which was the best to raise a family. Why is Raleigh better than Nashville or Kansas City?
Safer
More Educated Population
Outstanding Parks and Recreation
Short drive to both the beaches and mountains
Good public schools and outstanding magnet school programs
Higher incomes + low cost of living = more buying power
Fantastic resources for children including a children's museum, all the state museums plus a fantastic interactive nature research center.
Because it makes this list and the others don't. http://homes.yahoo.com/news/best-cit...204745331.html
Good post. It's funny how defensive people are getting. While Raleigh has an impressive regional population, the city and metro and region just does not offer the same amenities as Nashville or KC. Raleigh does not have a large city feel to it at all. I would compare it to Wichita or Mobile or Grand Rapids. When you visit Raleigh, it does not feel like you are in a major (or even mid sized major) city like KC or Nashville does nor does it offer anywhere near the culture and attractions.
Let's not resort to hyperbole here. Raleigh may have a smaller skyline than Nashville and Kansas City, and less built-up urban neighborhoods, but not to the extent that you're portraying. It's very obviously larger than Mobile or Wichita, and it feels like a mid-sized city (just a smaller one, which it is anyway). There is still an actual city there with nightlife options. It's not a suburban desert if that's the concern.
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.
