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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-14-2016, 07:32 AM
 
Location: Downtown Phoenix, AZ
18,927 posts, read 6,881,632 times
Reputation: 5856

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prickly Pear View Post
I don't agree with this. Phoenix city boundaries are HUGE, though. What I would do is:

1) Make Ahwatukee it's own city, since it wants to act like it's not part of Phoenix at all.
2) Make West Phoenix either it's own thing or part of other WV suburbs (i.e. Tolleson, Glendale, etc.).
3) Anthem should also be taken out of Phoenix since it's so isolated and is not really cohesive, I believe having Anthem and the Deer Valley area are bringing down density figures for Phoenix proper when it's not accurate.

There is a huge benefit to being in Phoenix limits as you know... WATER. Policies dictate that Phoenix, Glendale, Tempe, and Scottsdale get priority. However I do believe the reduction of size in Phoenix proper would better politically.
Again, Ahwatukee to Tempe (same school district), Arcadia to Scottsdale, Northwest Phx to Glendale and Northeast Phoenix to Paradise Valley/Scottsdale

Just the boundaries of Phoenix Union would still make the city between 150-200 sq miles give or take
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-14-2016, 08:26 AM
 
1,291 posts, read 1,126,863 times
Reputation: 2153
Minneapolis is a small city but a medium sized metro. As with many northern cities they are hemmed in on all sides by independent burbs.

I would incorporate Richfiekd, St Louis Park, Golden Valley and St. Anthony into MPLS proper. For St. Paul, Flacon Heights, southern Roseville (south of 36) and W and S St Paul.

Off the top of my head that would get the core twin cities to around 1mil. Which for a metro at 3.3mil that seems reasonable.

The other thing you could do is keep the right bed as the border all the way up (then Nordeast would be St Paul).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-14-2016, 09:00 AM
 
3,961 posts, read 3,496,941 times
Reputation: 6362
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr roboto View Post
Minneapolis is a small city but a medium sized metro. As with many northern cities they are hemmed in on all sides by independent burbs.

I would incorporate Richfiekd, St Louis Park, Golden Valley and St. Anthony into MPLS proper. For St. Paul, Flacon Heights, southern Roseville (south of 36) and W and S St Paul.

Off the top of my head that would get the core twin cities to around 1mil. Which for a metro at 3.3mil that seems reasonable.

The other thing you could do is keep the right bed as the border all the way up (then Nordeast would be St Paul).
I know it would upset MSP purists, but I would simply start by merging Minneapolis and St. Paul into 1 city. It would be a city of 700k people in 107sq mi. It would help people realize they are actually 1 core with 2 downtowns. Instead of thinking Minneapolis is the lone mid size anchor of a 3 million plus metro, which often seems to be the misconception.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-14-2016, 09:14 AM
 
56,672 posts, read 80,973,859 times
Reputation: 12521
I guess I would include the towns of Salina, Geddes, DeWitt and Onondaga:


That would make Syracuse 140 square miles with about 245,000 people. That would also include some very rural areas in the southern portion of Onondaga and to a lesser degree, DeWitt as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-14-2016, 09:22 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,436 posts, read 11,937,287 times
Reputation: 10542
I'm not a fan of the idea of city-county mergers honestly. I don't want to live in a city which is mostly dominated by the suburbs in terms of voting power. That said, I'd like Pittsburgh to absorb some of the older mill towns and neighborhoods just outside of our borders. Going around the county, with Pittsburgh highlighted in blue, here's what I'd annex in green.

North of the city, I'd annex Millvale and Reserve Township. The former is a very old and urban 19th century mill town. The latter is a mixture of urban, suburban, and rural neighborhoods, but the city's borders would look awkward without it.

To the northwest, I'd annex two other old urban mill towns, Etna and Sharpsburg. Also Aspinwall, which is a middle-class borough down by the river with a nice walkable downtown. While Ohio Township is suburban in nature, it's basically constructed of leftover bits which didn't get annexed into other municipalities. We thus should scoop up two of the smaller enclaves which would border the new city limits (and in one case be surrounded) in order to reach a good natural border.

To the east of the city, we take in Wilkinsburg, which was built out as a very urban streetcar suburb, but has now fallen on hard times. We also take in the more urban portions of the Woodland Hills School District, which include Edgewood, Swissvale, Rankin, Braddock, North Braddock, and East Pittsburgh. In terms of current state they vary from gentrified and desirable to poor and blighted.

Across the Mon we take in some of the river areas in the greater Homestead area - Homestead, West Homestead, Whitaker, and parts of Munhall. I made the decision to split Munhall because the inner portions of the borough are urban, while the outer ones are pretty suburban in terms of built form.

Traveling further west, we take Mount Oliver (which is surrounded by Pittsburgh) along with working-class white Brentwood and parts of Baldwin. I made the decision to split Baldwin because sections of it are very close to Downtown, but portions are very far out, meaning a good urban border is impossible without some spicing here. A bit further to the west still we take in the solidly middle class streetcar suburb of Dormont - which still has a functioning streetcar.

In the greater West End, we take in Green Tree, which is mostly suburban, but helps to round out city borders a bit. We also take in Crafton and Ingram, which are old streetcar suburban areas and on the same side of the Chartiers Creek as city neighborhoods. A bit further north, we absorb the old mill towns of McKees Rocks and Stowe Township.

Finally, we take in Bellvue and Avalon on the north side of the Allegheny. These are two older streetcar suburbs which are about as urban as the closest city neighborhoods.

Altogether, this adds around 140,000 people to Pittsburgh's existing population of roughly 304,000, meaning a city population of 444,000. Many of the areas added are lower income and troubled, so I'm not sure if it would be a net fiscal plus for the city overall. But it would more accurately reflect the urban boundaries of the City of Pittsburgh.
Attached Thumbnails
if you could redraw your city's map....-bitmap.png  
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-14-2016, 11:58 AM
 
Location: Cbus
1,721 posts, read 1,404,423 times
Reputation: 2089
Here are the Columbus boundaries in 1950.




Here are the modern day boundaries after wide-scale annexation mostly in the 60-80's.


I would start by axing anything outside of the 270 loop.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-14-2016, 05:53 PM
 
Location: Oklahoma City
742 posts, read 721,394 times
Reputation: 795
I would probably de-annex much of Oklahoma City's rural areas and maybe annex some of the enclaves, going from 620 square miles to 118 square miles. That would bring down the population from 580,000 to about 420,000 (using 2010 Census numbers). The population density would then be about 3,600/sq mi.

Here is just one iteration:
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2016, 11:20 AM
 
Location: Minneapolis (St. Louis Park)
5,991 posts, read 8,321,280 times
Reputation: 4270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckeye614 View Post
Here are the Columbus boundaries in 1950.




Here are the modern day boundaries after wide-scale annexation mostly in the 60-80's.


I would start by axing anything outside of the 270 loop.
That is obnoxious -- I didn't think it was legal to completely engulf another city within a municipal boundary (i.e. the white areas within the shaded region)! Maybe that happened before the law took place? Columbus' annexation doesn't seem to do it many favors -- since it thins out population density, is more costly to build infrastructure and maintain, etc. -- but maybe I'm wrong. Does anyone with knowledge of the city know whether annexation is generally considered to be a pro or con to the city/metro?

*Edit: I didn't realize until now that the I-270 loop in the 1950's map is MUCH smaller than its actual placement -- at least at the north end.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2016, 03:51 PM
 
3,491 posts, read 5,669,219 times
Reputation: 1700
I live in Midland,TX and if i had my way I would expand the city limits to include the cities of Midland and Odessa/West Odessa/Gardendale/Greenwood.However that will never happen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2017, 06:21 PM
 
Location: Downtown Los Angeles
992 posts, read 578,855 times
Reputation: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220 View Post
Again, Ahwatukee to Tempe (same school district), Arcadia to Scottsdale, Northwest Phx to Glendale and Northeast Phoenix to Paradise Valley/Scottsdale

Just the boundaries of Phoenix Union would still make the city between 150-200 sq miles give or take
I think there is a case for bringing Tempe and Scottsdale into Phoenix, seeing as they're urban cores. Essentially, everything inside Loop 101 should be one city.
Reply With Quote 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.


Reply
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.

2005-2019, 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