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.
Apparently the majority of americans are stupid. When you ask some normal person what is the bigger city between Houston or Dallas, they say Houston, not Dallas because of its metro area.
Cities with large land areas rank high on population lists because they have vast acres of suburban areas within the city limits. A few cities in the east have consolidated with their counties to produce a large city poplulation (Jacksonville, Nashville, Indianapolis, Virginia Beach) but most of the cities with large areas within their boundaries are west of the Mississppi.
There are many reasons why different cities in different areas of the country have differing footprints. Some cities got ringed in by suburbs and cannot grow any further. This would be the majority of the northeastern cities.
Some are in states where the county wields much more power and can keep the core cities contained. This is the scenario in Georgia. Atlanta is in Fulton County which has a very odd shape. It is very narrow in the center where Atlanta is and it borders the two neighboring counties, Cobb and DeKalb. Decades ago, Atlanta annexed portions of DeKalb, but Atlanta has not expanded its city limits to any large degree since the 1950s. Cobb County has fought hard against Atlanta expansion across the Chattahoochee for so long, it is never even brought up as a discussion item. The suburb of Sandy Springs directly to the north of Atlanta for decades fought to incorporate to keep from being annexed by Atlanta and finally succeeded just a few years ago when the state legislature went republican.
Meanwhile Texas cities are able to expand on a whim. I don't know the ins and outs of the differences, but I am a Georgia native and have spent many years in Texas and the ability of a city in Georgia because of state and local politics to expand its city limits is very difficult, whereas in Texas, it seems if a city wants another area, they just go grab it. Texas cities can expand their ETJ (Extra Territorial Jurisdcition) by a tiny thin line and take in vast swaths of land. Look at Fort Worth for example. They have moved their line and have kept suburban towns like Benbrook, Saginaw and White Settlement (and several others) completely landlocked. Fort Worth's population growth would be suburban city population growth in most other metro areas.
I bring up all this because of your insistence that Atlanta would only be the sixth largest city in Texas. The factors that bring this into play don't make any sense. If Atlanta were in Texas, it would be like a Texas city and what is now Sandy Springs, Dunwoody, Marietta, Decatur and any other numerous Atlanta suburbs would be either swallowed up or surrounded by Atlanta and Atlanta would have a population well over 1 million like the Texas cities.
If Atlanta were deemed less significant because it would be sixth in Texas, you would have to add Washington, DC, Boston, Cleveland, St. Louis, Seattle, Denver, Kansas City and New Orleans to that list as well. Do you think El Paso or Fort Worth or Austin is any more significant on a national or regional level than any of these cities? Heck, add San Antonio to that list as well.
Post Katrina New Orleans would only be the fifth largest city in the DFW metroplex, eclipsed by Arlington and Plano. Is Plano, TX more significant than New Orleans on anybody's list? Yours maybe, but you alone.
A metro area is what sets a city apart. Look at where the pro sport franchises locate. Why is San Antonio with its million plus home to only an NBA team while cities like Atlanta, Denver, Boston, Washington, etc with less than half that city population have all four major sport franchises? Do you think the powers that be in these leagues looked at the city limit population to decide if a team would be viable in these markets? Absolutely not. They looked at the metro area.
The same for businesses. Does a company looking to expand and set up a regional headquarters or how many retail outlets to open up or where to relocate their headquarters decide this by looking to the central city population or the population of the entire metro area? Why do I even have to ask this question?
Atlanta's metro area is just over 5 million and closing in on Houston. When Dallas metro area is considered outside of Fort Worth, Atlanta surpasses it.
These are the numbers that count. Hold on to your city limit numbers to make yourself feel superior, but no one else cares about those figures. It is metro area that makes a difference in any practical application.
Spread a rumor that a tornado is coming for dallas that is unpresidented within the next year and they'll flock to ft. worth. Than youll get the on top of the world feeling
Well, that..... or they'll flock to one of the millions of suburbs in the area.
I think atlanta metro is so big in population because it has about 29 counties in there metro. 29 COUNTIES! But miami metro has 3 counties and like 5million people, about the same number as atlanta. And I think Atl has that many counties in there metro because geogia as a whole dosent have that many large cities in there state outside of atlanta so all the surrounding counties within 60 or 70 miles of Atlanta were all just annexed into the ATL metro.
I think atlanta metro is so big in population because it has about 29 counties in there metro. 29 COUNTIES! But miami metro has 3 counties and like 5million people, about the same number as atlanta. And I think Atl has that many counties in there metro because geogia as a whole dosent have that many large cities in there state outside of atlanta so all the surrounding counties within 60 or 70 miles of Atlanta were all just annexed into the ATL metro.
Again, do some research on the differences in state and local politics in one region vs. another. Look at a county map of Florida and one of Georgia. For whatever reason, the powers that be in Georgia over 100 years ago decided that a bunch of tiny counties made sense. Georgia has 159 counties, second only to Texas and its 212. Texas is the 2nd largest state land wise, Georgia is 21st. Florida has 67. Florida and Georgia are about the same size land wise, so dividing that by 159 vs. 67 gives you a much smaller county in land area.
Also, looking at a map of Florida, you will notice that Dade and Palm Beach are much larger than most other Florida counties. Dade has 1959 sq miles. Fulton is the largest county in the Atlanta area with 535 sq miles, almost a fourth the size. Some of Atlanta counties are much smaller, Rockdale has 132 sq miles, Clayton, 144; Fayette, 199; Douglas, 200. It would take 10 of these types of counties to equal a Dade.
Metro areas don't "annex" counties. The census bureau uses a variety of sets of data to determine whether or not a county is considered part of a metro area, namely the percentage of the population in one county that crosses into the core metro counties for work and other factors that determine if a county is dependent on a central city and its surrounding suburbs.
The Atlanta Regional Commission does not include all the counties that the census bureau does to determine its metro area. Metro areas are subjective. Most people use the Census bureaus definition, but it is just that, a definition by a federal agency to do things like we are doing here, compare statistics.
Yeah that's great and all ,but the normal person dosen't go by metro area.
Please stop. You're embarrassing yourself. The "normal" person may not (in your eyes), but corporations, sports franchises, etc., do go by metro areas first.
And Saintmarks, Atlanta isn't closing in on Houston much at all. Only outgrowing it by a few thousand.
Again, do some research on the differences in state and local politics in one region vs. another. Look at a county map of Florida and one of Georgia. For whatever reason, the powers that be in Georgia over 100 years ago decided that a bunch of tiny counties made sense. Georgia has 159 counties, second only to Texas and its 212. Texas is the 2nd largest state land wise, Georgia is 21st. Florida has 67. Florida and Georgia are about the same size land wise, so dividing that by 159 vs. 67 gives you a much smaller county in land area.
Also, looking at a map of Florida, you will notice that Dade and Palm Beach are much larger than most other Florida counties. Dade has 1959 sq miles. Fulton is the largest county in the Atlanta area with 535 sq miles, almost a fourth the size. Some of Atlanta counties are much smaller, Rockdale has 132 sq miles, Clayton, 144; Fayette, 199; Douglas, 200. It would take 10 of these types of counties to equal a Dade.
Metro areas don't "annex" counties. The census bureau uses a variety of sets of data to determine whether or not a county is considered part of a metro area, namely the percentage of the population in one county that crosses into the core metro counties for work and other factors that determine if a county is dependent on a central city and its surrounding suburbs.
The Atlanta Regional Commission does not include all the counties that the census bureau does to determine its metro area. Metro areas are subjective. Most people use the Census bureaus definition, but it is just that, a definition by a federal agency to do things like we are doing here, compare statistics.
Very good point. The florida counties are way larger in land area comparison to georgia. Therefore more people. And your right they dont annex counties. But STILL Atlanta matro does go out pretty far though. But if you look at south florida even the large counties of palm beach broward and dade have there own metro divisions in there own counties that in turn make up a larger metro area. I know the counties are bigger but are they really that much bigger than Atl metro counties. And plus you said they are way bigger in land area but, how much of that large land area in palm beach, broward, and dade, do the actual population of south fl actually live on? Remember south floridas urban population is religated to just a 20mile strip of land between the everglades and the atlantic ocean as compare to Atl metro where the population is just aloud to spred out on what ever land they wish. Its 2 different environments.
Please stop. You're embarrassing yourself. The "normal" person may not (in your eyes), but corporations, sports franchises, etc., do go by metro areas first.
And Saintmarks, Atlanta isn't closing in on Houston much at all. Only outgrowing it by a few thousand.
Both are two of the fastest growing metro areas in the country for sure, but here are some statistics to back up my point.
2000 census
Houston metro - 4,715,000 (allow me to round to the nearest thousand)
Atlanta metro - 4,248,000
a difference of 467,000 in Houston's advantage
2007 census estimate
Houston metro - 5,628,000
Atlanta metro - 5,278,000
a Houston advantage of 350,000 which translates into a 83,000 gaining by Atlanta in seven years.
A look at CSAs (combined statistacal areas) is even closer. Houston's CSA adds Huntsville, TX to the mix, Atlanta's CSA adds Gainesville GA to its totals
2007 census estimate
Houston CSA - 5,729,000
Atlanta CSA - 5,626,000
now the difference is only 103,000 in Houston's favor.
Some more figures:
1990 census
Houston metro - 3,767,000
Atlanta metro - 3,069,000
1980 census
Houston metro - 3,099,000
Altanta metro - 2,183,000
So here are the advantages Houston has had over Atlanta, proving Atlanta has steadily gained on Houston:
Atlanta has gained on Houston by 566,000 people in 27 years. That is more than a "few thousand," that is like adding another city the size of Denver (city of Denver, not metro) to the mix.
Not saying this makes Atlanta greater, just that it is growing even faster than a fast growing city like Houston.
When I think "The South", Atlanta instantly comes to mind, not to mention the financial institutions, cultural outlets, and media corporations headquartered there. The rapid rise in diversity of the region is also an indicator of how much of a magnet the city is, but this is just my opinion.
Both are two of the fastest growing metro areas in the country for sure, but here are some statistics to back up my point.
2000 census
Houston metro - 4,715,000 (allow me to round to the nearest thousand)
Atlanta metro - 4,248,000
a difference of 467,000 in Houston's advantage
2007 census estimate
Houston metro - 5,628,000
Atlanta metro - 5,278,000
a Houston advantage of 350,000 which translates into a 83,000 gaining by Atlanta in seven years.
A look at CSAs (combined statistacal areas) is even closer. Houston's CSA adds Huntsville, TX to the mix, Atlanta's CSA adds Gainesville GA to its totals
2007 census estimate
Houston CSA - 5,729,000
Atlanta CSA - 5,626,000
now the difference is only 103,000 in Houston's favor.
Some more figures:
1990 census
Houston metro - 3,767,000
Atlanta metro - 3,069,000
1980 census
Houston metro - 3,099,000
Altanta metro - 2,183,000
So here are the advantages Houston has had over Atlanta, proving Atlanta has steadily gained on Houston:
Atlanta has gained on Houston by 566,000 people in 27 years. That is more than a "few thousand," that is like adding another city the size of Denver (city of Denver, not metro) to the mix.
Not saying this makes Atlanta greater, just that it is growing even faster than a fast growing city like Houston.
Beaumont-Port Arthur (population 370K), has a chance on being added to Houston's CSA. Also, Atlanta's MSA sprawls out more than Houston's (don't look at county sizes). Go look at urban area numbers, where Houston trumps Atlanta in density and population.
Very good point. The florida counties are way larger in land area comparison to georgia. Therefore more people. And your right they dont annex counties. But STILL Atlanta matro does go out pretty far though. But if you look at south florida even the large counties of palm beach broward and dade have there own metro divisions in there own counties that in turn make up a larger metro area. I know the counties are bigger but are they really that much bigger than Atl metro counties. And plus you said they are way bigger in land area but, how much of that large land area in palm beach, broward, and dade, do the actual population of south fl actually live on? Remember south floridas urban population is religated to just a 20mile strip of land between the everglades and the atlantic ocean as compare to Atl metro where the population is just aloud to spred out on what ever land they wish. Its 2 different environments.
You are right, and that is my point, you have to look at statistics on many levels when making comparisons. The available land in South Florida is definitely a constraining factor, it has caused the area to be much denser.
Altanta and Dallas are the two fastest growing metro areas in the country and they are similar in they are two of the few areas that don't have an ocean or mountain range or some other geographical feature that hem them in. Dallas will spill over into Oklahoma and Atlanta into Alabama and Tennessee if something doesn't stop them.
I am not saying this is good at all. Sprawl in itself is not a thing to love. But it is one of the reasons (along with good weather, good business climate and cheap available land) why these two cities are outpacing eveyone else.
Georgia counties are definitely an oddity. It makes for an unwieldy metro Atlanta. Way too many levels of government, counties competing, cities and their prospective counties arguing. It is one of the reasons the traffic is bad, there hasn't been enough cooperation between the differing groups to look at the whole. And the state government has an us vs. them mentality, meaning the rest of GA vs. Atlanta.
Miami/Ft Lauderdale/West Palm is considered a whole metro area now, not a CSA anymore (see my other post above) meaning the separate metro areas are now considered one large urban mass. Atlanta has not had that, it is all Atlanta and its suburbs. So, Atlanta dwarfs Miami when just Miami Dade is considered, but when the whole Miami to West Palm area is considered as a whole, it just tops Atlanta. But Atlantas CSA (when Gainseville and LaGrange are added for its CSA) then leapfrogs the Miami, FtL, WPB area. Just depends on what set of statistics you look at.
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.
But STILL Atlanta matro does go out pretty far though. But if you look at south florida even the large counties of palm beach broward and dade have there own metro divisions in there own counties that in turn make up a larger metro area. I know the counties are bigger but are they really that much bigger than Atl metro counties. And plus you said they are way bigger in land area but, how much of that large land area in palm beach, broward, and dade, do the actual population of south fl actually live on? Remember south floridas urban population is religated to just a 20mile strip of land between the everglades and the atlantic ocean as compare to Atl metro where the population is just aloud to spred out on what ever land they wish. Its 2 different environments.