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 wish Miami would annex some of its surrounding surburbs. Our city limits only cover about 36 miles of land but we have close to a half million people in that little space. I wonder what the population would be if our city limits covered 150-200 sq miles. It would probably land us in the top 6 in population.
@153.18 square miles of land, Miami is 1,251,389. This is based on the land areas and 2013 populations of just the following MiamiDade municipalities and/or CDPs:
Miami
Hialeah
Miami Gardens
Miami Beach
Kendall
North MIami
Coral Gables
North MIami Beach
Aventura
Miami Lakes
Pinecrest
Sunny Isles Beach
Opa Locka
Miami Springs
Miami Shores
North Bay Village
Surfside
Bay Harbour Islands
This would place Miami 9th. @ 200 square miles, there's no doubt in my mind that the ranking would be 6th, if not 5th.
I suppose it would be possible for Miami to annex some of the unincorporated land area in MiamiDade but I am not sure that the city would be interested. I think that the tide has shifted a bit toward the city of Miami being more desirable with its growing tax base from all the new towers. In the past, I suppose that the unincorporated areas would truly resist being annexed but now I wonder if the city would want to take on all that extra infrastructure responsibility?
MiamiDade already has a county mayor and government system. I suppose it would be possible for the entire county to become a consolidated city @ 2.6 million but I wouldn't hold my breath.
New York
Los Angeles
Chicago
Houston
Philadelphia
Phoenix
Dallas
San Diego
San Francisco
Seattle
Atlanta
Boston
Denver
Washington D.C.
Miami
There's 15 from the top of my head you can make a real case for being more "important" than Minneapolis. There are probably a few more.
Denver, San Diego, and Phoenix? To each their own I guess. However, my point was that while Minneapolis is the 46th most populous city, it's importance far outweighs many cities that are more populous, and can go toe to toe with many of the most populous cities
Denver, San Diego, and Phoenix? To each their own I guess. However, my point was that while Minneapolis is the 46th most populous city, it's importance far outweighs many cities that are more populous, and can go toe to toe with many of the most populous cities
To each their own indeed. You can make a sound argument for each of these three cities being more "important" than Minneapolis just as easily as you can the other way around. It has probably already been done on this forum, and I don't want to turn this into a "Minneapolis vs..." thread. We are not likely to convince the other anyway. And I definitely understand your point, because I feel the same way about Denver. It punches far above its weight amongst U.S. cities 2,000,000 to 5,000,000.
New York
Los Angeles
Chicago
Houston
Philadelphia
Phoenix
Dallas
San Diego
San Francisco
Seattle
Atlanta
Boston
Denver
Washington D.C.
Miami
There's 15 from the top of my head you can make a real case for being more "important" than Minneapolis. There are probably a few more.
Not sure what you makes you think Phoenix, San Diego, and Denver are more important than Minneapolis. Whatever the case, your opinion doesn't matter, especially when there is information available that would help one make an informed decision.
Among the 30 largest U.S. metropolitan areas
GDP:
Minneapolis - 13th
Phoenix area - 15th
San Diego - 16th
Denver area - 18th
As far as patents between 2007 and 2011,
Minneapolis - 8th
Phoenix area - 16th
San Diego - 7th
Denver area - 22nd
In 2011, academic institutions reported expenditures in research and development (R&D)
Minneapolis - 14th
Phoenix ranked 24th
San Diego ranked 9th
Denver ranked 20th
2013 Fortune 500 Companies
Minneapolis 18
Phoenix - 6
San Diego - 2
Denver - 10
Publicly Held Companies
Minneapolis - 10th
Phoenix - 19th
San Diego - 14th
Denver - 13th
S&P Based Companies
Minneapolis - 9th
Phoenix - 17th
San Diego - 21st
Denver - 12th
Exports, 2012
Minneapolis - 9th
Phoenix - 22nd
San Diego - 16th
Denver - 30th
Global Fortune 500
Minneapolis - 5th
Phoenix - 17th
San Diego - doesn't have any
Denver - doesn't have any
Bank Concentration Index
Minneapolis - 2nd
Phoenix - 6th
San Diego - 14th
Denver - 15th
Total Occupational Employment (2012)
Minneapolis - 9th
Phoenix - 10th
San Diego - 14th
Denver - 16th
Employment in Health Care Industries (2012)
Minneapolis - 9th
Phoenix - 11th
San Diego - 22nd
Denver - 20th
Employment in Medical Device Industries (2012)
Minneapolis - 2nd
Phoenix - tied for last
San Diego - 4th
Denver - 24th
Employment in High-Tech Industries (2012)
Minneapolis - 11th
Phoenix - 17th
San Diego - 14th
Denver - 16th
Go ahead and make that sound argument for each of those three cities being more "important" than Minneapolis. The fact is, if it weren't for Minneapolis, the Twin Cities area wouldn't be anything like it is today -- an area that ranks very well among the top 30 largest metro areas and way above the vast majority of others. If you have anything other than your opinion that you would like to share, feel free.
BTW, my response wasn't meant to rip on the Phoenix, San Diego and Denver areas.
Not sure what you makes you think Phoenix, San Diego, and Denver are more important than Minneapolis. Whatever the case, your opinion doesn't matter, especially when there is information available that would help one make an informed decision.
Among the 30 largest U.S. metropolitan areas
GDP:
Minneapolis - 13th
Phoenix area - 15th
San Diego - 16th
Denver area - 18th
As far as patents between 2007 and 2011,
Minneapolis - 8th
Phoenix area - 16th
San Diego - 7th
Denver area - 22nd
In 2011, academic institutions reported expenditures in research and development (R&D)
Minneapolis - 14th
Phoenix ranked 24th
San Diego ranked 9th
Denver ranked 20th
2013 Fortune 500 Companies
Minneapolis 18
Phoenix - 6
San Diego - 2
Denver - 10
Publicly Held Companies
Minneapolis - 10th
Phoenix - 19th
San Diego - 14th
Denver - 13th
S&P Based Companies
Minneapolis - 9th
Phoenix - 17th
San Diego - 21st
Denver - 12th
Exports, 2012
Minneapolis - 9th
Phoenix - 22nd
San Diego - 16th
Denver - 30th
Global Fortune 500
Minneapolis - 5th
Phoenix - 17th
San Diego - doesn't have any
Denver - doesn't have any
Bank Concentration Index
Minneapolis - 2nd
Phoenix - 6th
San Diego - 14th
Denver - 15th
Total Occupational Employment (2012)
Minneapolis - 9th
Phoenix - 10th
San Diego - 14th
Denver - 16th
Employment in Health Care Industries (2012)
Minneapolis - 9th
Phoenix - 11th
San Diego - 22nd
Denver - 20th
Employment in Medical Device Industries (2012)
Minneapolis - 2nd
Phoenix - tied for last
San Diego - 4th
Denver - 24th
Employment in High-Tech Industries (2012)
Minneapolis - 11th
Phoenix - 17th
San Diego - 14th
Denver - 16th
Go ahead and make that sound argument for each of those three cities being more "important" than Minneapolis. The fact is, if it weren't for Minneapolis, the Twin Cities area wouldn't be anything like it is today -- an area that ranks very well among the top 30 largest metro areas and way above the vast majority of others. If you have anything other than your opinion that you would like to share, feel free.
BTW, my response wasn't meant to rip on the Phoenix, San Diego and Denver areas.
Those are all very quantitative reasons and solid arguments for the Minneapolis-St Paul area. When I say "more important" I am also considering qualitative reason as well. Qualitative reasons may be a lot more subjective, but they are just as real or even more so than quantitative reasons.
Stats like what you've listed really only matter to people who discuss this stuff on this forum and others like it. Stuff like density or skyline height and so on matters only to a few people who frequent these pages. Out in the real world, not so much. Let's say someone is comparing Denver to the Twin Cities. Maybe as a vacation destination or even work. Are the rankings you listed even a factor? Probably not. Maybe they would come into play if they were taking a job and where either city ranked in that area of employment was somehow relevant. I would argue it seldom is. Would a job pay less in a given field in a city that is not ranked as high as another? I don't think you can really make that argument, so the quantitative rankings are largely irrelevant outside CvC where people like to play "mine is bigger than yours."
Qualitative reasons matter just as much or maybe more. Most people form opinions on qualitative factors more so than quantitative. So I'll give a couple qualitative factor supporting why Denver is a more important city than Minneapolis-St Paul.
First off, the Twin Cities don't really have anything the Denver area doesn't have. Shopping, dining, recreation, museums, sports, entertainment, etc. These two areas are pretty much on the same tier regarding amenities, so you can't make a qualitative argument in support of the Twin Cities over Denver based on these factors. You can do the opposite, though. Denver is known for its outdoor lifestyle and is on the doorstep of the Rockies. This difference may be subjective and may not matter so some, but to discount its importance to many is to apply a very limited understanding of how people form opinion and preference for one area over another.
Denver is an isolated city, so it's regional importance far exceeds other cities of similar or even slightly larger size. Its sphere of influence is far greater than the Twin Cities. The Twin Cities, an impressive area in its own right, is behind Chicago and Detroit in its region. That's not a knock on the area. Chicago is a heavyweight and Detroit is one of the most significant cities in the country's history, being at the center of our rise to being an industrial powerhouse.
Denver receives more international recognition. Its airport is the gateway to world class skiing so the city sees more national and international travel. Both are listed as Beta- world cities, a status derived from some quantitative and a lot of subjective and qualitative criteria. If there is a significant edge for the Twin Cities over Denver in IT, finance or any other specific field, there is always the chance Denver can close that gap. But there is no world class destination in or immediately outside the Twin Cities like there is outside Denver, so the Twin Cities will likely never see the amount of volume of international travel as a destination as Denver will.
Quantitative stats and rankings have their place, but I highly doubt they matter to to many people outside forums like this one. Other things matter as well. And that's not just "my opinion" as you've dismissed in your post. These are real factors that play into how important a city is or isn't. How important these factors are is a matter of opinion, I'll grant you that. But to be dismissive and say my opinion "doesn't matter" is wrong because my opinion is likely more closely aligned to the way mainstream public forms their opinions in factoring how prominent a city is or isn't. You can form your opinion based on quantitative factors, but it is a lot more dynamic than that for a lot of people out there.
Last edited by iknowftbll; 06-02-2014 at 03:00 AM..
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.
