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)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 07-25-2017, 03:58 PM
_OT
 
Location: Miami
2,055 posts, read 1,297,871 times
Reputation: 1661

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by bawac34618 View Post
I would consider it a small metro. Kansas City, Charlotte, Indianapolis, etc are mid-sized. OKC is probably the least urban city its size in the country and therefore punches significantly below its weight. Tulsa and Omaha are both more urban and feel larger than OKC does. It's a tier below Memphis, Louisville, Jacksonville, etc and two tiers below Kansas City in my opinion.
Eh, I disagree

I think it's in a tier with those other cities you mentioned.

 
Old 07-25-2017, 04:09 PM
 
1,211 posts, read 2,229,534 times
Reputation: 642
Quote:
Originally Posted by _OT View Post
Eh, I disagree

I think it's in a tier with those other cities you mentioned.
It's not even close bud.
 
Old 07-25-2017, 04:14 PM
Status: "Praise Be" (set 23 days ago)
 
Location: Trumpville
7,258 posts, read 3,288,416 times
Reputation: 6305
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter1948 View Post
I agree but OKC doesn't feel like a big city. It feels smaller than every metro in the 1-1.5 million range. Way less urban too
I agree with this.

OKC is best compared with cities in the 500,000-900,000 metro population range simply because it punches so far below its weight. It's peers are cities like Little Rock, Wichita, Knoxville, Mobile, Jackson MS, Baton Rouge, Augusta GA, etc.
 
Old 07-25-2017, 04:46 PM
 
Location: California x North Carolina (soon)...
3,338 posts, read 2,253,146 times
Reputation: 3672
Quote:
Originally Posted by metro.m View Post
Raleigh and the Triangle are synonymous,just like OKC's metro. Wake county's (Raleigh) population is around 1.1 million people. Most of that population immediately surrounds the city. Urban Areas or UA is the best measurement of a city's general size. Raleigh is larger than OKC. It is what it is.
Stop it...

Basically what you're saying is that Raleigh is more on par with Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Charlotte, Kansas City, and Portland than it is with Richmond, New Orleans, Louisville, Salt Lake, Providence, and Memphis. Not only does a statistical analysis prove your assertion wrong, but an objective comparison of Raleigh to the former cities, and actual experience and time spent in the former cities compared to Raleigh, proves your lofty and bold statement to be miserably out of pocket...
 
Old 07-25-2017, 05:02 PM
 
Location: Kansas City, Missouri
76 posts, read 47,344 times
Reputation: 79
Lets bring Raleigh into this thread.... turn in into a mix of "OKC vs raleigh" and are these 2 a "top 3 tier" cities
 
Old 07-25-2017, 05:04 PM
 
Location: South Beach and DT Raleigh
11,546 posts, read 17,903,967 times
Reputation: 10691
Quote:
Originally Posted by metro.m View Post
Raleigh and Oklahoma City are not comparable. Raleigh is much larger. Raleigh's urban area is the same size as the entire Oklahoma city metro.

Raleigh (Triangle) pop. 2.2 million
Oklahoma City Metro pop. 1.3 million.

Oklahoma is a a decent size city however, but in no way is it a "BIG" city...
Those are not the urbanized area populations. If you are going to compare, compare fairly by designation.

Raleigh's urbanized area is 1,460,000 (Was recently combined with Durham's since they've grown together) (+228,000 since 2010)
OKC's urbanized area is 950,000 (+68,000 since 2010)
Moderator cut: Link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowed

Raleigh's MSA is 1,302,946 (+172,467 since 2010)
Oklahoma City's MSA is 1,373,211 (+120,220 since 2010)

Raleigh's CSA (Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill) is 2,156,253 (+243,622 since 2010)
Oklahoma City's CSA (Oklahoma City-Shawnee) is 1,445,502 (+123,069 since 2010)

Notes:
1. Using last year's demographia report, Raleigh's UA was over 1.1 million without Durham
2. Raleigh's and Durham's MSA's are likely to combine in the future as did their UA.
3. OKC's UA is more densely populated than Raleigh's UA while Raleigh's city, MSA and CSA are more densely populated than OKC's.
4. UA densities are based on 2010 in demographia report. 2017 UA densities are not reported.

I don't consider Raleigh a big city and, using the data, I wouldn't consider OKC one either.

Last edited by Yac; 07-28-2017 at 06:46 AM..
 
Old 07-25-2017, 05:08 PM
Status: "Praise Be" (set 23 days ago)
 
Location: Trumpville
7,258 posts, read 3,288,416 times
Reputation: 6305
Raleigh is unique in that it shares an urban area with a separate MSA. Raleigh is one of the few cases where using the CSA makes more sense than using the MSA. I usually detest the CSA metric, but for Raleigh it's the most accurate. I would say Raleigh's peers are Charlotte, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, etc. It's at the lower end of that tier, but that's the tier that its in.

Oklahoma City needs a major population boom if its to ever catch up with other cities its size. It's doing the best with what it has and to be honest, OKC is much better than it used to be. The city's right wing politics and location in the middle of tornado alley really hold it back however.
 
Old 07-25-2017, 05:14 PM
 
Location: Kansas City, Missouri
76 posts, read 47,344 times
Reputation: 79
Can we edit this to Raleigh VS OKC lol
 
Old 07-25-2017, 05:17 PM
 
Location: Seattle, Washington
1,875 posts, read 2,550,013 times
Reputation: 1154
It depends how you define Tier 1 and Tier 2 cities. I classify NYC, LA, Chicago, Philly, Houston, Boston, Dallas, San Francisco, DC, Atlanta, Seattle, and Miami as Tier 1 but I know a bunch of people who would say Houston, Philly, Atlanta, Miami, and Seattle are Tier 2.
 
Old 07-25-2017, 05:24 PM
 
Location: Kansas City, Missouri
76 posts, read 47,344 times
Reputation: 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by DevanXL View Post
It depends how you define Tier 1 and Tier 2 cities. I classify NYC, LA, Chicago, Philly, Houston, Boston, Dallas, San Francisco, DC, Atlanta, Seattle, and Miami as Tier 1 but I know a bunch of people who would say Houston, Philly, Atlanta, Miami, and Seattle are Tier 2.
I would agree I would say Kansas City is a tier 2 city, but are cities like OKC and Raleigh tier 3 or tier 4?
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.


Closed Thread

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