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.
If we're going strictly on population, California has by far more than any other state. There are 258 cities in the the U.S. with a population of over 100,000 and if I counted correctly, 62 of them are in California. Texas has the next most with 27. Also, of our nation's 50 largest cities, eight (Oakland, San Francisco, San Jose, Long Beach, Fresno, Sacramento, Los Angeles, and San Diego) are in California, again more than any other state.
If we're going strictly on population, California has by far more than any other state. There are 258 cities in the the U.S. with a population of over 100,000 and if I counted correctly, 62 of them are in California. Texas has the next most with 27. Also, of our nation's 50 largest cities, eight (Oakland, San Francisco, San Jose, Long Beach, Fresno, Sacramento, Los Angeles, and San Diego) are in California, again more than any other state.
This isn't surprising - considering cali's physical size. I'm guessing if you took the same sq mileage as cali, and put it on the east coast, there would be at least the same # of cities.
Look at the metro list (which is relevant as again, city populations are totally irrelevant and inaccurate in referring to urban areas). Or do you want to continue to suggest
that Fresno's not quite 900,000 area is bigger than Sacramento's 2 million and also that Long Beach is not part of the LA area and would be the entity that it is without the other 10+ million people surrounding it in LA county?
Look at the metro list (which is relevant as again, city populations are totally irrelevant and inaccurate in referring to urban areas). Or do you want to continue to suggest
that Fresno's not quite 900,000 area is bigger than Sacramento's 2 million and also that Long Beach is not part of the LA area and would be the entity that it is without the other 10+ million people surrounding it in LA county?
If you want to speak in loose terms, establish that. Saying "such and such is bigger" is straight and to the point. One is technically bigger than another, so don't drag in your vague reasoning from nowhere and suddenly say that you're correct. In factual terms, you're not.
No, I'm not. North Carolina and Arizona are one of the fastest growing states in the country, and cities that in 2000 were less than 100,000 people have boomed to close than 200,000. Look at Gilbert and Carefree, Arizona for example.
Also North Carolina has many major cities over 100,000 people. We're talking about big cities, not world cities.
If you want to speak in loose terms, establish that. Saying "such and such is bigger" is straight and to the point. One is technically bigger than another, so don't drag in your vague reasoning from nowhere and suddenly say that you're correct. In factual terms, you're not.
I am being factual. City proper populations are useless. Boston has less than 50 square miles and has less than 600,000 people within that political boundary. However a dense urban population spills well beyond those tiny borders into a population of millions. Jacksonville FL has over 700 square miles, and has I think 800,000 people with that broad boundary and not much more than beyond that.
So yes, metropolitan data is factual and much more accurate in discussing true populations centers.
I referenced specific places before and now again. This isn't speaking in loose terms, it's speaking in the recognized criteria for comparing cities. Business look at metros ("Markets") not "cities" as you describe them. Sports teams don't look at city populations. TV markets are not city populations (this doesn't mean that they are accurate of a city's size, just that a city's size alone is useless).
If you want to discuss public works, school systems and tax bases, then yes the city definition comes into play, but little beyond that.
I am being factual. City proper populations are useless. Boston has less than 50 square miles and has less than 600,000 people within that political boundary. However a dense urban population spills well beyond those tiny borders into a population of millions. Jacksonville FL has over 700 square miles, and has I think 800,000 people with that broad boundary and not much more than beyond that.
So yes, metropolitan data is factual and much more accurate in discussing true populations centers.
I referenced specific places before and now again. This isn't speaking in loose terms, it's speaking in the recognized criteria for comparing cities. Business look at metros ("Markets") not "cities" as you describe them. Sports teams don't look at city populations. TV markets are not city populations (this doesn't mean that they are accurate of a city's size, just that a city's size alone is useless).
If you want to discuss public works, school systems and tax bases, then yes the city definition comes into play, but little beyond that.
i agree about city proper populations being useless. In the case of St. Louis, what really angers me is when everybody likes to imagine that St. Louis County and St. Charles County and St. Clair County and Madison County of Illinois, right across the river from St. Louis are non-existent and only look at St. Louis City, which has an area of less than 60 square miles and a population of 354,000, and claim that places like Louisville and Indy and Cleveland are much bigger cities, pretending that the metropolitan area is cheap and overrated and that city proper definitions are the modern way to define a city, which as far as I'm concerned is total bulls**t. Yes, the aforementioned three are large and nice cities, but c'mon,when you really look at the big picture, St. Louis is as large as Cleveland where metro areas are concerned, twice as large as Louisville, and bigger than Indy by almost a million people. When you include St. Louis County, whose eastern boundary is 6 miles from downtown, and the counties of Illinois immediately across the river from downtown, and across the Missouri River, about 20 miles away from downtown, you get a population of 2.87 million, which is the accurate way to represent St. Louis. And to my amazement, some people still like to claim this is not a proper way to represent St. Louis, even despite this incredibly close distance to the city limits, which are only about 10 X 6 miles. Some people just don't get it that city proper definitions are outdated and that metro areas are the real way to define a city. Metro areas represent the sprawl of a city's entire population. The city proper area are mere limits that serve to clip off a huge chunk of the population and therefore extraordinarily misrepresent the entire city. Some people like to claim its cheap to represent a city by the metro area because it unfairly gives a city with small boundaries an increase in population. I argue the opposite. It is cheap to represent a city by its city limits when obviously the population continues to sprawl well beyond the city limits and the areas don't become rural until about 30 miles outside of a city. As you said, Joe, businesses, sports team, and marketing and just about everything you can think of look at metro areas today as the true population centers, not city proper populations. And I'm pretty sure that anybody driving through St. Louis would think to themselves, unless they are blind in both eyes, oh wow the city continues for over 30 miles after downtown everytime they drive through it heading west. The only time I would ever use city proper definitions would be when the area becomes rural outside of the city limits and during the three things you mentioned. THat is the only time that data is actually relevant. Other than that, the majority of the time, city proper definitions are worthless.
How about...
1st place - Ca w/ LA, SF Bay, San Diego , Sacramento
2nd place - TX w/ Dallas, Houston,San Antonio, Austin ( Austin while not that large carries weight because it's the capitol)
Florida w/ Miami, Tampa Bay area, Orlando & Jacksonville.
States w/ 2-3 cities
Ohio w/ Cleveland, Cincy & Columbus
NY w/ NYC, Buffalo (Rochester?)
MO w/ STL & KC
Tenn. w/ Memphis & Nashville
Penn. w/ Philly and Pittsburgh
Va w/ Richmond & DC
Maryland w/ DC & Baltimore
NC w/ Charlotte and the Triangle cities.
Unless I missed something the other states have one major city or none.
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.
