City-Data Forum City poulation vs. Metro population (live, statistics, activity)
 User Name Remember Me Password [Register]
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.

01-14-2013, 08:51 AM
 Location: Atlanta 634 posts, read 1,210,838 times Reputation: 334

I have a question in regards to how other cities' populations compare to their metros. For example Atlanta only has roughly 450,000 people in the city, but its metro is nearly 5x as much, approaching 6,000,000. Are there any other cities with such a huge disparity between its city population and metro populations? I know Charlotte's is more "normal" with 750,000 vs. 1,500,000

01-14-2013, 08:55 AM
 Location: The City 22,341 posts, read 32,208,951 times Reputation: 7749
Quote:
 Originally Posted by ajjam I have a question in regards to how other cities' populations compare to their metros. For example Atlanta only has roughly 450,000 people in the city, but its metro is nearly 5x as much, approaching 6,000,000. Are there any other cities with such a huge disparity between its city population and metro populations? I know Charlotte's is more "normal" with 750,000 vs. 1,500,000

what really is normal?

City limits are a municpal boundary driven metric MSA or UA speak more to the developed size of a place

01-14-2013, 09:00 AM
 Location: Atlanta 634 posts, read 1,210,838 times Reputation: 334
Quote:
 Originally Posted by kidphilly what really is normal? City limits are a municpal boundary driven metric MSA or UA speak more to the developed size of a place
I understand how the statistics work. Im not trying to define normal, just asking what other cities get swallowed by their MSA? Other cities could " hold their own" if the entire metro just left, but Atlanta is completely dependant upon its entire area. I think that's what I'm really trying to get at.

01-14-2013, 09:03 AM
 Location: The City 22,341 posts, read 32,208,951 times Reputation: 7749
Quote:
 Originally Posted by ajjam I understand how the statistics work. Im not trying to define normal, just asking what other cities get swallowed by their MSA? Other cities could " hold their own" if the entire metro just left, but Atlanta is completely dependant upon its entire area. I think that's what I'm really trying to get at.

DC, Miami, SF, and Boston are all relatively small as far as the city goes in this regard

Jax, SA, Austin, Indy are all large as far as cities go

01-14-2013, 01:20 PM
 Location: New York NY 4,271 posts, read 6,361,890 times Reputation: 9086
I know that becuase Detroit is hollowed out, the MSA is about 6 times the size of the population within the city limits. Because DC is realtively small I think the ratio city to MSA is even larger, likley eight to one. In a big city like NYC its more like three to one.

As to which cities could "hold their own" w/o a metro area I thinhk it's pretty clear that the more economic activity that's concentrated in the core city, the easier that would be. So left to its own devices, a place like Detroit with relatively little central city business would sink. But even a small city in a big metro with a healthy economy would likely do OK. Think DC or San Fran -- even with their robust suburban economies.

01-14-2013, 01:57 PM
 Location: South St Louis 3,795 posts, read 3,460,260 times Reputation: 1957
Yeah, I think Orlando's MSA is like ten times the population of the core city's. Same goes for Hartford's.
Various factors are at play: First, the ability or inability of a city to annex land. Landlocked cities like Washington, and independent cities such as Baltimore and St. Louis, cannot increase their area. So naturally the suburbs experience most all of the growth in population.
Another factor is the tendency for sprawl of an urban area. Some cities, like El Paso and Bakersfield, haven't experienced the great emigration to the suburbs like other cities, such as Detroit and Cleveland.
Then there's the rampant land annexation by some cities, gobbling up suburban areas, increasing the city's size. Good examples are KCMO and Houston.
And let's not forgot those MSA's with two or more core cities, including Minneapolis-St. Paul, Dallas-Ft. Worth, the Inland Empire, Tampa-St. Pete, and Hampton Roads. The dynamics of population in those MSA's will obviously vary from those with one core city.
Bottom line: Each urban area has a slightly different set of circumstances, be it geographic or other, which dictates what portion of the population resides within or outside the core city.

01-15-2013, 04:43 PM
 Location: Orlando 109 posts, read 106,537 times Reputation: 28
Quote:
 Originally Posted by 1greatcity Yeah, I think Orlando's MSA is like ten times the population of the core city's. Same goes for Hartford's. Various factors are at play: First, the ability or inability of a city to annex land. Landlocked cities like Washington, and independent cities such as Baltimore and St. Louis, cannot increase their area. So naturally the suburbs experience most all of the growth in population. Another factor is the tendency for sprawl of an urban area. Some cities, like El Paso and Bakersfield, haven't experienced the great emigration to the suburbs like other cities, such as Detroit and Cleveland. Then there's the rampant land annexation by some cities, gobbling up suburban areas, increasing the city's size. Good examples are KCMO and Houston. And let's not forgot those MSA's with two or more core cities, including Minneapolis-St. Paul, Dallas-Ft. Worth, the Inland Empire, Tampa-St. Pete, and Hampton Roads. The dynamics of population in those MSA's will obviously vary from those with one core city. Bottom line: Each urban area has a slightly different set of circumstances, be it geographic or other, which dictates what portion of the population resides within or outside the core city.
Long time reader, first time poster. It's insane here in orlando, our population is 238k and the metro is around 2.1 million plus the 50 million tourists we get a year! The drawback is not having a downtown that looks like 2 million people live here...

01-16-2013, 09:05 AM
 Location: South Beach and DT Raleigh 11,810 posts, read 18,831,684 times Reputation: 11141
Quote:
 Originally Posted by ajjam I have a question in regards to how other cities' populations compare to their metros. For example Atlanta only has roughly 450,000 people in the city, but its metro is nearly 5x as much, approaching 6,000,000. Are there any other cities with such a huge disparity between its city population and metro populations? I know Charlotte's is more "normal" with 750,000 vs. 1,500,000
Miami is another example of this. Miami proper is tiny (36 square miles) and less than 410,000 people with a MSA over 5.6 million.

01-16-2013, 09:28 AM
 Location: Old Hyde Park, Kansas City,MO 1,145 posts, read 2,080,861 times Reputation: 565
Milwaukee is only like 1.5 times bigger then the metro, I believe the City population is 600k and the metro population 1.5 million

01-16-2013, 09:32 AM
 Location: "Daytonnati" 4,245 posts, read 5,994,000 times Reputation: 2967
Dayton city is 16% to 17% of its MSA population
 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.