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.
Im not bagging on cities either, im just saying city populations do not matter
St.Louis would be thought of as a large city but its population is 320,000 people and declining
Most rust belt cities would be thought of as large cities but they have small populatinos as well
Its not just the rust belt though. Most major cities in Florida have low popuations but huge metros.
However, all of these cities are way more important then El Paso, Oklkahoma City, Omaha, Fresno, Las Vegas, Corpus Christi, Memphis, Virginia Beach and so many other cities that annex huge areas but have small metro areas.
Many of the cities with small city pop but large metros usually and are economically some of the most important metropolitan areas in america. For example St.Louis has a GDP of 128 billion while Virginia Beach a city nearly twice the size of st.louis has a GDP of 80 million or San Antonio with its 88 Million and Cincinnati with its 104 Million.
so does city population really determine how important or major a city can be?
Of course not. Actually city populations are very arbitrary. Metro population is what most people look at as far as the actual size of a "city", and even then population doesn't mean everything. There are many cities that grow by hundreds of thousands every few years, but really just having more warm bodies doesn't make a city great or exciting.
Of course not. Actually city populations are very arbitrary. Metro population is what most people look at as far as the actual size of a "city", and even then population doesn't mean everything. There are many cities that grow by hundreds of thousands every few years, but really just having more warm bodies doesn't make a city great or exciting.
Then why is it so ingraved in people's heads to think larger city pops=More importance. Using that logic El Paso would be one of the most important cities in america.
Although metro poplulation is a far better gauge of an urban area than city population alone, even this method has its many flaws. For example:
1. Large urbanized areas that straddle national borders (e.g. Detroit/Windsor, San Diego/Tijuana) don't get fair representation, since the non-US portion of the area is never included in the MSA population.
2. Urbanized areas that have grown together (e.g. Washington/Baltimore, NYC/Philly) may sacrifice what could be a portion of their MSA to the adjoining MSA.
3. Some continuous urbanized areas (e.g. LA/Inland Empire, SF/San Jose) have been subdivided into two separate MSAs, thereby diminishing the original MSA's perceived importance.
4. There are MSAs which include just one county (such as Las Vegas), and some that consist of dozens of counties (like Atlanta). So the physical perameters of MSAs can vary greatly.
5. Also due to county lines, some MSAs include large areas which are not urban in the slightest. San Bernardino County, California is a prime example-- most of it is sparsely populated desert. Towns far to the east of the urbanized area, near the Nevada border, are arbitrarily included in the SB/Riverside MSA simply by being located in the same vast county.
Then why is it so ingraved in people's heads to think larger city pops=More importance. Using that logic El Paso would be one of the most important cities in america.
I don't think that many people think this way. Or at least, I haven't seen anyone ever claim that El Paso, Columbus, Charlotte, Jacksonville, Memphis, etc are more important than Boston because their city populations are larger.
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,749 posts, read 23,813,296 times
Reputation: 14665
This has been discussed many times on CD. Metro population is what really packs a punch
Jacksonville, Fort Worth, and Indianapolis are bigger cities than Boston, Seattle, or Denver (clearly the later three are more important nationally and internationally). Mesa, Arizona which is a fairly non descript suburb of Phoenix is bigger than St. Louis, Atlanta, Miami, and Pittsburgh.
Development patterns are very different as well. My hometown of Albuquerque has 552,000 people. That's about 60% of the metro areas population which just shy of 1 million but has a similar city population as Portland, OR which has a metro population of more than double that.
Most people figure the size of the city is arbitrary as I doubt anyone from Jacksonville would ever trump a size argument with Boston.
Last edited by Champ le monstre du lac; 12-06-2012 at 09:30 PM..
The only way the city limits and population within them matter is that cities with larger populations tend to be able to do more--for good or ill. Otherwise, the metro or urbanized area population is what matters.
city population is relatively meaningless, unless you believe that el paso is is a "bigger city" than boston or washington, dc.
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.
[LEFT][LEFT][/LEFT]
