U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 01-16-2015, 01:04 AM
 
1,527 posts, read 1,378,335 times
Reputation: 1362

Advertisements

I was just curious to see if someone could explain the differences between the three in how they alter the feel of an area.

For example how does a smaller city with a larger metro compare to a larger city with a smaller metro?

Like a city with 300,000 people with a metro of over 3 million to another city of 750,000 people and a metro of only 1.6 million?

Or how does a mid-sized city with a high-density compare to a large city with moderate to low density?
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-16-2015, 07:58 AM
 
545 posts, read 849,157 times
Reputation: 299
city population doesn't matter. density and metro pop do. for example, Columbus Ohio has over 800,000 people, while Boston has only 650,000. yet Boston is a MUCH more big time city, because it's metropolitan area is much much larger, and it is a way denser city. the only reason columbus has such a high population is because it's land area is way bigger than Boston's. So the numbers can be decieving. Same thing with Houston vs Philly. Houston has more people, but Philly is way denser, and has the bigger metro area. so Philly would be the "bigger" city.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2015, 11:52 AM
 
1,527 posts, read 1,378,335 times
Reputation: 1362
Cool, thanks. How does this hold up for smaller cities and metros in the 50,000 to 250,000 size? Is it noticeable?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2015, 12:50 PM
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
3,521 posts, read 3,104,633 times
Reputation: 2777
To answer the OP, every city is contextual; no two cities are alike. In general, density is most important in big city feel, but not always (I.e. Los Angeles, Houston). Small city, large metro (Boston) could be on par with Large city, small metro (Phoenix, relatively)...it's all contextual. Even Jacksonville has its moments...
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2015, 01:04 PM
 
4,060 posts, read 4,598,301 times
Reputation: 2862
Quote:
Originally Posted by qworldorder View Post
To answer the OP, every city is contextual; no two cities are alike. In general, density is most important in big city feel, but not always (I.e. Los Angeles, Houston). Small city, large metro (Boston) could be on par with Large city, small metro (Phoenix, relatively)...it's all contextual. Even Jacksonville has its moments...
I agree - the numbers can give you some hints if you slice it up enough ways, but which data are relevant in each comparison will end up playing a bit differently, especially if you're only looking at one or two 10,000 foot view metrics.

If you just wanted to compare city to metro, Chicago and Portland have pretty similar ratios of city to metro pop, but Portland's MSA is much less dense.

How useful is that information on its own? Eh...hard to say. It's probably more relevant in comparing the two that the Chicago MSA population is 4x the size of the Portland MSA. But you could break down the comparison any number of different ways depending on what question you were trying to get at.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2015, 03:50 PM
 
448 posts, read 612,356 times
Reputation: 798
Quote:
Same thing with Houston vs Philly. Houston has more people, but Philly is way denser, and has the bigger metro area. so Philly would be the "bigger" city.
Small nitpick, Houston's metro is now larger than Philly's. 6.3m to 6.0m. I definitely agree that Philly's city feels larger though, due to the density.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2015, 07:21 PM
 
1,658 posts, read 1,624,228 times
Reputation: 1216
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadoAngel View Post
Small nitpick, Houston's metro is now larger than Philly's. 6.3m to 6.0m. I definitely agree that Philly's city feels larger though, due to the density.
Houston's metro has twice the land area of Philly's. 10,062 sq miles for Houston, to Philly's 5,118.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2015, 04:49 PM
 
Location: New England
77 posts, read 82,801 times
Reputation: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by gottaq View Post
city population doesn't matter. density and metro pop do. for example, Columbus Ohio has over 800,000 people, while Boston has only 650,000. yet Boston is a MUCH more big time city, because it's metropolitan area is much much larger, and it is a way denser city. the only reason columbus has such a high population is because it's land area is way bigger than Boston's. So the numbers can be decieving. Same thing with Houston vs Philly. Houston has more people, but Philly is way denser, and has the bigger metro area. so Philly would be the "bigger" city.
Yep, if you took all the towns and cities that abut Boston and included them as part of Boston, Boston would be massive in terms of population and to a lesser degree, geographic area.

As it is, Brookline, Cambridge, Chelsea, Somerville, Watertown, Quincy etc. are, for all intents and purposes, Boston.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2016, 04:36 PM
 
Location: Downtown Phoenix, AZ
20,164 posts, read 7,614,647 times
Reputation: 6264
Quote:
Originally Posted by qworldorder View Post
To answer the OP, every city is contextual; no two cities are alike. In general, density is most important in big city feel, but not always (I.e. Los Angeles, Houston). Small city, large metro (Boston) could be on par with Large city, small metro (Phoenix, relatively)...it's all contextual. Even Jacksonville has its moments...
Phoenix is actually pretty dense in the Central Areas, as is the northern half of Tempe and the western fourth of Mesa, the inner 5 mile radius of downtown Phoenix has an average density of 10-11k/sq mi, which is on par with the avg density of say Chicago or Philadelphia, but those two cities have areas that push 50k/sq mi, so not saying they are as dense mind you
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2016, 04:46 PM
 
Location: Washington D.C. By way of Texas
18,833 posts, read 27,714,275 times
Reputation: 9896
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdaelectro View Post
Houston's metro has twice the land area of Philly's. 10,062 sq miles for Houston, to Philly's 5,118.
To be fair, Texas counties are larger than Pennsylvania counties. Harris County has 4.5 million people in just 1777 sq miles and about a third of the sq miles is swamp, uninhabitable land and water, and unincorporated. Then you have large counties like Chambers which is next door to Harris County but pretty much rural yet counted in Houston's MSA.
Quick reply to this message
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 update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top