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.
The city of Philadelphia is continuing to grow every year in population. The Philly area is already more populated than the entire state of Arizona. Phoenix's population estimates have always been overestimated when compared to the actual official census counts. I've used this metric on another thread for the use of population comparison between the Philly area and other cities.
The Phoenix MSA is twice the land area the Philly CSA. So even with the added land area for Philly, the Phoenix MSA is still significantly larger by land area.
Philly MSA: 5,131.7 sq. miles
Philly CSA: 7,281.52 sq. miles
Phoenix MSA: 14,565.76 sq. mi.
As you can see, the Philly area reaches a population of over 7.1 million people in a land area half the size as of the Pheonix MSA at 4.1 million. Throw in Mercer County "224.56 sq mi" (which should technically be in the Philly CSA) and the gap grows even larger to about 7.5 million "7,506.08 sq. mi" vs 4.1 million "14,565.76 sq. mi". That's a 3.4 million difference. A population difference that is almost the size of Los Angeles.
Instead of focusing on CSA and MSA square miles, which can be so wild in size due to using county boundaries, why not use urban area? It more accurately measures where people are actually living.
Comparison of land areas by urban areas:
Philadelphia 1981.4 sq miles
Phoenix 1146.6 sq miles
I think it is interesting that the Phoenix urban area is actually more densely populated than the Philadelphia urban area.
That's actually very common in terms of Western cities versus Eastern cities (e.g., LA's urban area being more densely populated than NYC). Outside of the cores of very dense cities like NY, Philly, Boston and DC, you're going to find that it transitions much quicker to larger lots and less developed land much quicker that what you'd find in Phoenix, for example.
I understand Urbs point - from funding perspective it could impact it - though I believe it goes on population so regardless in the relative sense Philly with lose proportionally on funding - though if the aggregate rate stays constant it could stay whole o to speak (per capita) - city populations are fun but not always comparable - SA, Jax, SJ, Austin all being in the top ten make no sense really when looking at cities
Maybe annex Delaware county
With annexed
2.2 Million in a little over 300 sq miles
the same population as Houston in half the sq miles
That's actually very common in terms of Western cities versus Eastern cities (e.g., LA's urban area being more densely populated than NYC). Outside of the cores of very dense cities like NY, Philly, Boston and DC, you're going to find that it transitions much quicker to larger lots and less developed land much quicker that what you'd find in Phoenix, for example.
Yeah Philly gets to 400 milion radiating from the core in the first 750-800 sq miles
Why do people even care about city population anymore? With ridiculously bloated city limits, of course Phoenix will eventually pass Philly's population. The same could even be said about American MSAs...10,000+ sq. miles. Poor measurements for this type of discussion IMO.
Here are what population numbers look like at 1, 5, 10, 20 and 30 mile radius measurements:
And like I said, MSAs are just as bad. The Phoenix MSA is over 14,000 square miles, but still smaller population-wise than Philly by a large margin. At the end of the day, these measurements do not show how large a city really is. That can be easily seen by physically visiting both.
EDIT:
I ran a measurement for Phoenix at 6.5 mile radius, which gives about 131 square miles; very close to Philly's 134. The population came in at 529,189...a medium sized city for the most part. That doesn't mean it's not a large metro area, but as far as a central city, Phoenix is smaller than Portland OR (and feels it).
Instead of focusing on CSA and MSA square miles, which can be so wild in size due to using county boundaries, why not use urban area? It more accurately measures where people are actually living.
Comparison of land areas by urban areas:
Philadelphia 1981.4 sq miles
Phoenix 1146.6 sq miles
I think it is interesting that the Phoenix urban area is actually more densely populated than the Philadelphia urban area.
Either way Phoenix is going to have a larger land area. Even though urban area is a good metric, the metric I provided shows the population disparity that exists between the Philly area and Phoenix area. The Philly area has a more than 3 million people in a land area less than half the size of the Phoenix MSA. Phoenix will probably never surpass that population.
Instead of focusing on CSA and MSA square miles, which can be so wild in size due to using county boundaries, why not use urban area? It more accurately measures where people are actually living.
Comparison of land areas by urban areas:
Philadelphia 1981.4 sq miles
Phoenix 1146.6 sq miles
I think it is interesting that the Phoenix urban area is actually more densely populated than the Philadelphia urban area.
It's interesting but not surprising if you think about the difference between older East Coast metros and newer West Coast metros.
Older East Coast metros are typified by dense cores and "inner ring" communities surrounded by gracious (in land area) suburban development.
Newer West Coast metros are typified by smaller and less dense cores with densely developed suburbia.
Of course there are exceptions to that rule but, in my travels, that's what seems consistent to me.
Since every metro/urban area is going to have more suburban land area than core city area, it actually makes sense that the overall density is higher in Phoenix.
There are very few places in the nation that combine the dense urban core surrounded by densely developed suburbia. San Francisco is probably the best example of this model with L.A. being a close second and their numbers tell the story.
Why do people even care about city population anymore? With ridiculously bloated city limits, of course Phoenix will eventually pass Philly's population. The same could even be said about American MSAs...10,000+ sq. miles. Poor measurements for this type of discussion IMO.
Here are what population numbers look like at 1, 5, 10, 20 and 30 mile radius measurements:
And like I said, MSAs are just as bad. The Phoenix MSA is over 14,000 square miles, but still smaller population-wise than Philly by a large margin. At the end of the day, these measurements do not show how large a city really is. That can be easily seen by physically visiting both.
EDIT:
I ran a measurement for Phoenix at 6.5 mile radius, which gives about 131 square miles; very close to Philly's 134. The population came in at 529,189...a medium sized city for the most part. That doesn't mean it's not a large metro area, but as far as a central city, Phoenix is smaller than Portland OR (and feels it).
I agree with you that CSAs and MSAs are not an ideal way to measure cities but I don't think population in a radius is a good measure either. For some cities, it would be fine. For others, with geographic barriers, it is not such a good way to measure. NYC, Miami, Salt Lake City, among many others cannot grow in every direction in the way a city like Indianapolis could.
As far as the bloated city limits part, why must everything be measured by by standards of the northeast? Flipping it around, one could criticize the poor planning of Philadelphia in not taking in more land when it could. If it had it to do over, do you think Philadelphia would like more land today?
I use Philadelphia only as an example since it is the topic of this thread.
City proper populations are completely irrelevent. Philly is a much bigger city than Phoenix.
Phoenix doesn't even feel as big as a Cincy, St. Louis, or Pittsburgh. If you visited the city, and had no idea of the population, you would never consider that Phoenix is such a big city.
I agree with you that CSAs and MSAs are not an ideal way to measure cities but I don't think population in a radius is a good measure either. For some cities, it would be fine. For others, with geographic barriers, it is not such a good way to measure. NYC, Miami, Salt Lake City, among many others cannot grow in every direction in the way a city like Indianapolis could.
As far as the bloated city limits part, why must everything be measured by by standards of the northeast? Flipping it around, one could criticize the poor planning of Philadelphia in not taking in more land when it could. If it had it to do over, do you think Philadelphia would like more land today?
I use Philadelphia only as an example since it is the topic of this thread.
Those metrics make it more fair and balance given how vastly different those cities are. You can't get around the fact that the Philly area is not only more populated than the Phoenix MSA but the entire state of Arizona as well.
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.
