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 03-08-2015, 07:59 PM
 
Location: Mexico City, formerly Columbus, Ohio
12,791 posts, read 12,767,534 times
Reputation: 5454

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by T. Damon View Post
Same thing as San Diego. To compare Phoenix, San Antonio and San Diego (nearly identical size cities) this way when downtown San Diego is hard against the water and the other two sprawl pretty evenly in all directions is highly inaccurate.
Quite a few cities directly on the large bodies of water and/or significant geographic limitations moved up in the rankings, like Miami, Seattle and Boston. To suggest that San Diego is at a distinct disadvantage doesn't make sense when most cities in similar conditions improved from their real-life rank. Can you explain that if what you're saying is true?

San Diego has a city boundary that exceeds 372 square miles, which is well above average. Pairing it down to 8 miles from its center removes some of the water issue, actually, but does suggest that the city is not quite as big as perceived without the massive boundaries in play.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-08-2015, 08:01 PM
 
Location: Vineland, NJ
8,386 posts, read 9,964,665 times
Reputation: 5230
Quote:
Originally Posted by T. Damon View Post
Downtown Los Angeles is over 15 miles from the ocean so it has no affect whatsoever. NYC and Chicago are so much larger and denser that they simply overcome that area measured over water. These modest size cities are where this type of statistical measurement would make more of a difference.
San Diego seems to be where it should be in the OP's rankings. Do you really think San Diego should be right up there with cities like Los Angeles and Philadelphia? Keep in mind that San Diego's metro area is only 3 million. So you can't be that surprised with the results.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2015, 08:03 PM
 
Location: Zurich, Switzerland/ Piedmont, CA
31,598 posts, read 53,166,657 times
Reputation: 14516
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81 View Post
UA might be useful to a degree, but there is no way to standardize it. Same with metros, which are a conglomeration of counties and include a whole lot of disconnected space.
Yeah, but they are standardized in that a criteria has to be met in order for a ciy to be an urbanized area or metro area. All areas follow the same requirements.

It's not just based on the personal whims of individuals.

And simply drawing an exact sized circle around every city really doesnt qualify as an "equalizer" either because leaving out immediate areas beyond said circle is not really being intellectually honest imo.

Dallas, for example, is NOT shrinking. Just the parts within that circle.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2015, 08:25 PM
 
Location: Mexico City, formerly Columbus, Ohio
12,791 posts, read 12,767,534 times
Reputation: 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by T. Damon View Post
Downtown Los Angeles is over 15 miles from the ocean so it has no affect whatsoever. NYC and Chicago are so much larger and denser that they simply overcome that area measured over water. These modest size cities are where this type of statistical measurement would make more of a difference.
Except that the density in San Diego is high. Let's compare densities with a few other cities on the water that actually moved up on the ranking.


Mile 0
Boston: 40,000.7
Seattle: 22,070.4
Milwaukee: 13,686.2
San Diego: 13,170.0
Miami: 10,052.7

Mile 1
Boston: 35,550.2
Seattle: 17,819.3
Milwaukee: 15,143.6
San Diego: 12,744.7
Miami: 9,946.5

Mile 2
Boston: 25,544.0
Miami: 15,447.2
Milwaukee: 14,615.8
San Diego: 10,845.3
Seattle: 10,129.8


Mile 3
Boston: 22,118.9
Miami: 18,177.8
San Diego: 12,693.9
Milwaukee: 10,709.5
Seattle: 8,376.7


Mile 4
Boston: 16,615.2
San Diego: 13,046.8
Miami: 12,767.6
Seattle: 9,607.8
Milwaukee: 7,507.5

Mile 5
Miami: 11,494.5
Boston: 11,440.1
San Diego: 9,412.7
Seattle: 7,928.4
Milwaukee: 6,124.6

Mile 6
Miami: 11.778.0
Boston: 7,919.4
San Diego: 7,767.1
Seattle: 6,750.1
Milwaukee: 6,099.3

Mile 7
Miami: 10.645.8
San Diego: 8,312.4
Boston: 6,319.1
Seattle: 5,246.3
Milwaukee: 3,944.8

Mile 8
Miami: 8,500.2
Boston: 6,877.1
San Diego: 6,524.5
Seattle: 4,815.3
Milwaukee: 3,031.8

It seems to me that San Diego is right in the mix of those other cities in terms of registered density (NY and Chicago are some of the most dense cities in the country, so not a good comparison), so that's really not the issue. The issue is that the large city boundary has inflated its real-life ranking, and when standardized with others, it naturally drops from its inflated position. San Diego was clearly not the only city to have this happen, on the water or not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2015, 08:32 PM
 
Location: Mexico City, formerly Columbus, Ohio
12,791 posts, read 12,767,534 times
Reputation: 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
Yeah, but they are standardized in that a criteria has to be met in order for a ciy to be an urbanized area or metro area. All areas follow the same requirements.

It's not just based on the personal whims of individuals.

And simply drawing an exact sized circle around every city really doesnt qualify as an "equalizer" either because leaving out immediate areas beyond said circle is not really being intellectually honest imo.

Dallas, for example, is NOT shrinking. Just the parts within that circle.
I get that, but if you're talking about measuring the size of a core city vs. other core cities, metro areas are a pretty terrible way to do that, as are UAs. Metros are good for some things (commuting patterns for example), but not really all that useful in trying to directly compare the population of one city vs. another.

200 square miles is a pretty large area. I don't think it's an unreasonable measurement. When people talk about a city, more than likely they're talking about that part of it, not some far flung exurb. When it comes to Dallas, sure it can still show growth if you include almost 2x the area size than average. Almost any city would. Add enough area, and even Detroit grows, but I don't think that's a very realistic way to measure what's going on in a core city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2015, 12:54 AM
 
Location: Phoenix
5,361 posts, read 7,062,697 times
Reputation: 3974
Quote:
Originally Posted by iknowftbll View Post
I can understand trying to make an "apples to apples" comparison, but I've never gotten into the argument that a city of 500,000 packed into 65 square miles is somehow more of a city than a city of 1,000,000 spread out over 200 square miles. No two American cities are truly alike. Some a dense, some are not. Some have a big urban core, some are predominantly suburban. They all are a product of their geography and the eras in which they experience growth. They all have something to offer, and they all will not appeal to everyone. What's "better" is entirely subjective.

Just had to say it. Carry on!
I appreciate your post. Only on CD...lol.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2015, 01:46 AM
 
Location: Mexico City, formerly Columbus, Ohio
12,791 posts, read 12,767,534 times
Reputation: 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by iknowftbll View Post
I can understand trying to make an "apples to apples" comparison, but I've never gotten into the argument that a city of 500,000 packed into 65 square miles is somehow more of a city than a city of 1,000,000 spread out over 200 square miles. No two American cities are truly alike. Some a dense, some are not. Some have a big urban core, some are predominantly suburban. They all are a product of their geography and the eras in which they experience growth. They all have something to offer, and they all will not appeal to everyone. What's "better" is entirely subjective.

Just had to say it. Carry on!
The ranking doesn't actually consider the subjective. What might "make" a city in some way is up to the individual. This is just an exercise in examining actual population if a certain circumstance was true. Nowhere did it seek to quantify someone's opinion for them about the attractiveness of one city over another.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2015, 02:39 AM
 
Location: South Park, San Diego
4,645 posts, read 7,079,681 times
Reputation: 8477
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81 View Post
Except that the density in San Diego is high. Let's compare densities with a few other cities on the water that actually moved up on the ranking.


Mile 0
Boston: 40,000.7
Seattle: 22,070.4
Milwaukee: 13,686.2
San Diego: 13,170.0
Miami: 10,052.7

Mile 1
Boston: 35,550.2
Seattle: 17,819.3
Milwaukee: 15,143.6
San Diego: 12,744.7
Miami: 9,946.5

Mile 2
Boston: 25,544.0
Miami: 15,447.2
Milwaukee: 14,615.8
San Diego: 10,845.3
Seattle: 10,129.8


Mile 3
Boston: 22,118.9
Miami: 18,177.8
San Diego: 12,693.9
Milwaukee: 10,709.5
Seattle: 8,376.7


Mile 4
Boston: 16,615.2
San Diego: 13,046.8
Miami: 12,767.6
Seattle: 9,607.8
Milwaukee: 7,507.5

Mile 5
Miami: 11,494.5
Boston: 11,440.1
San Diego: 9,412.7
Seattle: 7,928.4
Milwaukee: 6,124.6

Mile 6
Miami: 11.778.0
Boston: 7,919.4
San Diego: 7,767.1
Seattle: 6,750.1
Milwaukee: 6,099.3

Mile 7
Miami: 10.645.8
San Diego: 8,312.4
Boston: 6,319.1
Seattle: 5,246.3
Milwaukee: 3,944.8

Mile 8
Miami: 8,500.2
Boston: 6,877.1
San Diego: 6,524.5
Seattle: 4,815.3
Milwaukee: 3,031.8

It seems to me that San Diego is right in the mix of those other cities in terms of registered density (NY and Chicago are some of the most dense cities in the country, so not a good comparison), so that's really not the issue. The issue is that the large city boundary has inflated its real-life ranking, and when standardized with others, it naturally drops from its inflated position. San Diego was clearly not the only city to have this happen, on the water or not.
This is an excellent chart layout. Thanks for posting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2015, 07:58 AM
 
Location: Atlanta
1,541 posts, read 1,789,406 times
Reputation: 1572
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81 View Post
There's like 9000 threads on the population of one city vs. another, but it's difficult to compare them exactly because city boundaries are much different. So what if every city was the same size? The average area size of the top 100 largest cities is a bit over 200 square miles. The US Census takes population counts at concentric circles from a city's center in mile increments. From there, it's simple math.

8 miles from the center is about 201 square miles, and since that's closest to the average city boundary size, that's what I used for the ranking. Here are the top 50 largest cities by population in 2010 at that size, along with the actual ranking.

Black= No Ranking Change, Blue= Improved Ranking, Red= Fallen Ranking

1. New York, NY: 5,859,411 #1
2. Los Angeles, CA: 2,955,825 #2
3. Chicago, IL: 2,189,593 #3
4. Philadelphia, PA: 1,961,742 #5
5. Washington, DC: 1,697,692 #23
6. Boston, MA: 1,570,632 #24
7. San Jose, CA: 1,388,537 #10
8. Las Vegas, NV: 1,184,445 #30
9. Baltimore, MD: 1,119,791 #26
10. Denver, CO: 1,117,377 #22
11. Houston, TX: 1,099,111 #4
12. San Francisco, CA: 1,090,727 #14
13. Minneapolis, MN: 1,045,344 #46
14. San Diego, CA: 1,028,040 #8
15. Portland, OR: 966,613 #29
16. Phoenix, AZ: 932,502 #6
17. Miami, FL: 929,332 #44
18. Dallas, TX: 910,359 #9
19. San Antonio, TX: 836,723 #7
20. Seattle, WA: 835,829 #21



21. Milwaukee: 819,470 #31
22. Columbus, OH: 795,666 #15
23. Riverside, CA: 795,229 #59
24. Pittsburgh, PA: 777,608 #62
25. Orlando, FL: 736,793 #77
26. Sacramento, CA: 724,687 #35
27. Atlanta, GA: 719,527 #40
28. Cleveland, OH: 719,218 #48
29. Indianapolis, IN: 699,998 #12
30. Detroit, MI: 698,366 #18
31. Cincinnati, OH: 685,958 #65
32. New Orleans, LA: 667,358 #51
33. St. Louis, MO: 661,948 #58
34. Austin, TX: 636,795 #11
35. Providence, RI: 632,315 #134
36. Fresno, CA: 605,187 #34
37. Albuquerque, NM: 582,264 #32
38. Tucson, AZ: 575,664 #33
39. Rochester, NY: 567,753 #103
40. Charlotte, NC: 567,682 #16
41. Buffalo, NY: 567,144 #73
42. Louisville, KY: 545,721 #28
43. Tampa, FL: 541,699 #53
44. Kansas City, MO: 540,511 #37
45. Hartford, CT: 521,796 #212
46. Bakersfield, CA: 512,014 #52
47. Oklahoma City, OK: 500,966 #27
48. Omaha, NE: 498,906 #42
49. Richmond, VA: 492,856 #99
50. Salt Lake City, UT: 487,968 #124

Rank Change, Best to Worst
Hartford, CT: +167
Providence, RI: +99
Salt Lake City, UT: +74
Rochester, NY: +64
Orlando, FL: +52
Richmond, VA: +50
Pittsburgh, PA: +38
Riverside, CA: +36
Cincinnati, OH: +34
Minneapolis, MN: +33
Buffalo, NY: +32
Miami, FL: +27
St. Louis, MO: +25
Las Vegas, NV: +22
Cleveland, OH: +20
New Orleans, LA: +19
Boston, MA: +18
Washington, DC: +18
Baltimore, MD: +17
Portland, OR: +14
Atlanta, GA: +13
Denver, CO: +12
Milwaukee, WI: +10
Tampa, FL: +10
Sacramento, CA: +9
Bakersfield, CA: +6
San Jose, CA: +3
San Francisco, CA: +2
Philadelphia, PA: +1
Seattle, WA: +1
Chicago, IL: 0
Los Angeles, CA: 0
New York, NY: 0
Fresno, CA: -2
Albuquerque, NM: -5
Tucson, AZ: -5
Omaha, NE: -6
San Diego, CA: -6
Columbus, OH: -7
Houston, TX: -7
Kansas City, MO: -7
Dallas, TX: -9
Phoenix, AX: -10
Detroit, MI: -12
San Antonio, TX: -12
Louisville, KY: -14
Indianapolis, IN: -17
Oklahoma City, OK: -20
Austin, TX: -23
Charlotte, NC: -24

So it seems that those cities with either large boundaries and/or low population density dropped in the rankings, while those with small borders and/or high density went up, which is pretty much what you would expect to happen if city size was standardized. It's not a perfect way to measure the size of city populations, but it's a lot more fair than what currently exists.

Also notice that, out of the top 25 largest current cities, 5 of them are missing from the ranking altogether. With the exception of Ft. Worth, which overlaps Dallas, the other 4 (Jacksonville, FL, Memphis, Nashville and El Paso, TX) wouldn't even crack the top 50 using this ranking.
Charlotte is the guiltiest of them all with their inflated pop.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2015, 08:30 AM
rah
 
Location: Oakland
3,315 posts, read 7,895,546 times
Reputation: 2492
Measuring cities like this is pretty meaningless because it gives biased results towards cities that are more centrally located among their metro/urbanized area (as opposed to those located more towards one side, such as along a coast), and it's also biased towards metros with less geographic constrictions...so a smaller city with development spreading relatively evenly in all directions can end up looking "bigger" than a larger city that has big parts of its urban/metro area broken up by bodies of water, mountains, etc. It's a misleading way to look at city size. For example this method of measurement includes huge swaths of water for cities such as SF, Seattle, and San Diego, to name a few.
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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - 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 - Top