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.
There's no comparison between any of the American cities to Tokyo, apples and oranges.
My take on city boundaries as a person that spends a lot of time in China is that it's strategic to have bigger boundaries. It gives your cities every type of living environment possible which sustains any sort of long term decline, if those cities can even manage to decline to begin with. For example, folks looking for a nice 6 bedroom home and not wanting to live in inner Phoenix can have the option in the city instead of living in a suburb because the large boundaries hold the city and inner or even outer suburbs. Beijing, Lima, Sydney, Perth, Moscow are all cities I could name that have this model and there is nothing to hide and cower your face in fear of. Why because a few butthurt cowering wimps on a forum are crying about being surpassed? LOL Folks in the US just aren't used to this so it uproars lots of hate filled feelings. TBH if the cities of Boston, San Francisco, Philly, etc could annex land they would. Larger tax foundation also pays for the infrastructure, police force, libraries, fire departments, etc in the city for San Franciscans it would cost more as the day time population surges and doubles so folks are using the infrastructure but half of them don't have to pay for it. It's a drain game and it's smarter to have larger boundaries for that purpose. Larger cities have the luxury of holding their cores, let the cores become as dense as they could, and having the other living conditions too. This model is not to everyone's liking but a slew of world cities are turning their attentions to doing this while the other half that cant are left to fend for themselves.
TBH looking at city boundaries is meaningless anyway. Look at the metro or global agglomerations for a better gauge IMO.
Oh I know very well that many cities would annex their neighbors if they could. Philly did. NY did. Detroit actually stopped growing when it stopped annexing. I bet you anything Detroit would love to suck up some of their wealthy burbs.
The Thing with annexations in the west the leeway was much larger so they could annex lots of land at once. Cities with over 1M residents in Texas has jurisdiction over all the land in a 5 mile radius around the current boundary. Texas did it so that their older cities would not get hemmed in and killed while the newer cities flourish. I definitely know that many cities would jump at adding as much as 5 miles in every direction to their city limits. DC and Baltimore would be snatching up those Maryland burbs before the other gets it.
Have you ever wondered why Houston's metro is 6M but the cities in it only add up to 4M? Its because there are over 2M people who are under Houston's jurisdiction but they do not belong to any incorporated city. I saw they were talking about Houston passing Chicago earlier in this thread, well Houston has been providing services for more people than Chicago for a long time now. technically it passed Chicago a couple of years ago.
But for Now Houston has more than enough land. It has not done any general purpose annexations since 1996 but I think it will have to after that Exxon Campus is built. That is too prime a development to let Spring or The Woodlands snatch up.
I just want to point out that Allegheny County is 735sq miles. Sure, that'd quadruple Pittsburgh's population overnight, but 735sq miles? That's absurd, even by Houston's standards.
Yea, that's city boundaries for you. Percentage-wise, it's not such a big increase from Houston especially when you do percentage comparisons of Houston to places like Miami or Boston.
Yea, that's city boundaries for you. Percentage-wise, it's not such a big increase from Houston especially when you do percentage comparisons of Houston to places like Miami or Boston.
around 1912 boston almost annexed all towns within 10 miles of the massachusetts state house which would have made it have a modern day population of about 1.8 million people which would make it the 5th largest city in the united states today in terms of population. not sure if it'd still be like that 38 years from now but its still pretty interesting
around 1912 boston almost annexed all towns within 10 miles of the massachusetts state house which would have made it have a modern day population of about 1.8 million people which would make it the 5th largest city in the united states today in terms of population. not sure if it'd still be like that 38 years from now but its still pretty interesting
what happened? Or should I say "why didn't it happen?"
what happened? Or should I say "why didn't it happen?"
I can see Boston as the 5th largest city
unfortunately people didn't want to be part of the big city, which is funny because alot of the areas that would have been annexed are now urban suburbs. i wish boston were the 5th largest city instead of philadelphia, mostly because then san jose wouldn't be in the top ten.
unfortunately people didn't want to be part of the big city, which is funny because alot of the areas that would have been annexed are now urban suburbs. i wish boston were the 5th largest city instead of philadelphia, mostly because then san jose wouldn't be in the top ten.
At least Boston is still among the top 10 largest MSA's.
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 5,136,325 times
Reputation: 3145
Quote:
Originally Posted by deh74
ya but it probably won't last too long, i see the bay area becoming one msa someday
And on that day, my life will change exactly zero. The population of San Francisco will also be the same. the thousands of people who live in SF and work down on the Peninsula and vice-versa will suddenly not be working in another metropolitan area. Their lives will not change either.
Boston is already the 5th largest Urban area. Houston is 9th. Does anyone think that drawing lines on a map to make Cambridge into a neighborhood in Boston would change anything other than a population figure?
The whole claim Houston makes to being the fourth largest city and fifth largest metro area is ridiculous. Houston barely has any suburban municipalities around it. The city has annexed in all directions throughout its history. So, nearly its entire metro area is counted as city population.
What is so hard for these Houston posters to understand? What difference does it really make? Is Houston any more or less appealing as the 9th largest urban area in the country? I honestly don't understand Houston's obsession with manipulating population rankings.
When I lived in Houston, it felt like a city about the size of Atlanta or Dallas- which it is. San Francisco, Boston and a few others feel much larger, because they are. There are about 1.5-2 million more people in each urban area, regardless of how arbitrary lines are drawn.
And on that day, my life will change exactly zero. The population of San Francisco will also be the same. the thousands of people who live in SF and work down on the Peninsula and vice-versa will suddenly not be working in another metropolitan area. Their lives will not change either.
Boston is already the 5th largest Urban area. Houston is 9th. Does anyone think that drawing lines on a map to make Cambridge into a neighborhood in Boston would change anything other than a population figure?
The whole claim Houston makes to being the fourth largest city and fifth largest metro area is ridiculous. Houston barely has any suburban municipalities around it. The city has annexed in all directions throughout its history. So, nearly its entire metro area is counted as city population.
What is so hard for these Houston posters to understand? What difference does it really make? Is Houston any more or less appealing as the 9th largest urban area in the country? I honestly don't understand Houston's obsession with manipulating population rankings.
When I lived in Houston, it felt like a city about the size of Atlanta or Dallas- which it is. San Francisco, Boston and a few others feel much larger, because they are. There are about 1.5-2 million more people in each urban area, regardless of how arbitrary lines are drawn.
i am not a houstonian i am a greater bostonian so trust me when i say that i know for a fact that bostons urban area is far superior than houston, atlanta, and dallas. i was just stating my opinion about how i think that in the future the bay area will be larger than greater Boston i was not saying anything about urbanized area.
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 5,136,325 times
Reputation: 3145
Quote:
Originally Posted by deh74
i am not a houstonian i am a greater bostonian so trust me when i say that i know for a fact that bostons urban area is far superior than houston, atlanta, and dallas. i was just stating my opinion about how i think that in the future the bay area will be larger than greater Boston i was not saying anything about urbanized area.
Yes, I understand. I was referring to previous posts by the Houston guy and his same tired claims.
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.
