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.
READ some of the responses to your logic...open your mind, and be ready to admit that you were wrong. It's not a bad thing - it's good to educate yourself whenever possible.
No I am not wrong. A city of 800,000 is more populated than a city of 600,000. I can't believe people are trying to convince me that 600,000 is a larger number than 800,000. More people live within the city limits of Indianapolis than those who live within the city limits of Seattle. Period
Do I seriously have to break out with another explanation of comparing populations of a MSA versus the population of a city within it's defined city-limits?
No, you don't. But what I and everybody else is telling you is that you using city limits to determine what the true size of the city does not tell the entire story. I know the difference. But city population statistics are irrelevant.
As a matter of fact, if you ask the average Floridian what's the biggest city in Florida, they'll tell you Miami but Miami only has 404,000 but does it in 35 sq miles.
Ask the average Texan which is bigger Houston or Dallas. Most will probably say Houston even though Dallas is in the larger metro.
Ask the average Texan which is bigger Houston or Dallas. Most will probably say Houston even though Dallas is in the larger metro.
On the contrary. Dallas-FORT WORTH (two major cities to form one metro btw) is the largest metro in Texas. But everybody in Texas knows that Houston is the bigger city.
No I am not wrong. A city of 800,000 is more populated than a city of 600,000. I can't believe people are trying to convince me that 600,000 is a larger number than 800,000. More people live within the city limits of Indianapolis than those who live within the city limits of Seattle. Period
The discussion IS not about which number is larger. This discussion is about "what defines a big city"...and an inflated population within city limits does not translate to a large city. I believe there is a consensus on this subject.
Again...I want to make sure you get this...we aren't talking about comparing numbers. We are talking about comparing the size of cities - and population isn't the only factor involved.
It's a sign of maturity and class to be able to admit when you're wrong. To keep arguing something absurd shows just the opposite.
No, you don't. But what I and everybody else is telling you is that you using city limits to determine what the true size of the city does not tell the entire story. I know the difference. But city population statistics are irrelevant.
I think I need to explain MSA to everyone because I clearly stated that I was listing cities based on the population within their city-limits. Not the metro area. City Proper, NOT METRO
The discussion IS not about which number is larger. This discussion is about "what defines a big city"...and an inflated population within city limits does not translate to a large city. I believe there is a consensus on this subject.
Again...I want to make sure you get this...we aren't talking about comparing numbers. We are talking about comparing the size of cities - and population isn't the only factor involved.
No doubt, but to hear people who so vehemently disagree that 800,000 is larger than 600,000 is absurd
I think I need to explain MSA to everyone because I clearly stated that I was listing cities based on the population within their city-limits. Not the metro area. City Proper, NOT METRO
And no one is questioning WHAT you posted...the responses are to the effect that those numbers have nothing to do with the actual size of a city.
I know Atlanta wasn't on the list, I was comparing the population of cities based on the population contained solely within the city-limits! How many times must this be repeated?
What we are telling you is that city proper populations alone is the last thing you want to use to determine if a city is big or not. If this is your way of determining a big city, then you need to get out and travel a little and stop looking at numbers on the internet.
No doubt, but to hear people who so vehemently disagree that 800,000 is larger than 600,000 is absurd
Who here said that 600,000 is larger than 800,000? I've read every post, and I have yet to find that statement. What people are saying is...a city of 800,000 residents within it's city limits is often not as large as a city with 600,000 residents within it's city limits.
Those are two different assertions.
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.
