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 12-12-2016, 10:57 AM
 
Location: Cbus
1,721 posts, read 1,400,744 times
Reputation: 2089

Advertisements

What are some sizable cities that lack really large suburbs or edge cities?

For example, where I live, Columbus has a city population of 850,106 and a metro population of 2,021,632. Despite that the largest secondary cities in our MSA are Newark (47,986) and Dublin (45,098).

In contrast Indianapolis has Carmel (88,713) and Fishers (83,891).

Off the top of my head I think Jacksonville would fall into the same category as Columbus as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-12-2016, 11:08 AM
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
3,512 posts, read 2,970,647 times
Reputation: 2742
Great thread idea. I think it depends on how you define "large", as that can be either a population threshold (say 50,000) or proportionately speaking. Philadelphia has several edge cities and large suburbs that are over 50,000 (Camden, Wilmington, Trenton, Cherry Hill), but are proportionately much smaller than Philadelphia proper.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2016, 11:12 AM
 
9,379 posts, read 9,534,811 times
Reputation: 5786
I think there has to be a distinction between something like Cambridge/Boston and Minneapolis/ St Paul.
Cambridge basically Boston sprawl. If you look the major employment center in Cambridge it is Kendall Sq, immediately adjacent to Downtown Boston, as opposed to Cambridge Center. It is one city with a line drawn through it. As opposed to Minneapolis St Paul that are truly 2 cities that grew together.
Columbus, Las Vegas, Portland Ore, Baltimore, don't have secondary cities. ( I would put Vancouver WA in a Cambridge Situation)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2016, 11:12 AM
 
7,702 posts, read 4,557,747 times
Reputation: 8414
Richmond, Virginia. This is largely to Virginia's odd city/county structure. I believe Petersburg is the second largest city in the metro, with roughly 34,000 people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2016, 11:19 AM
 
Location: Cbus
1,721 posts, read 1,400,744 times
Reputation: 2089
Quote:
Originally Posted by qworldorder View Post
Great thread idea. I think it depends on how you define "large", as that can be either a population threshold (say 50,000) or proportionately speaking. Philadelphia has several edge cities and large suburbs that are over 50,000 (Camden, Wilmington, Trenton, Cherry Hill), but are proportionately much smaller than Philadelphia proper.
That's a really good point. I think it would be interesting to examine both cases .

Quote:
Originally Posted by btownboss4 View Post
I think there has to be a distinction between something like Cambridge/Boston and Minneapolis/ St Paul.
Cambridge basically Boston sprawl. If you look the major employment center in Cambridge it is Kendall Sq, immediately adjacent to Downtown Boston, as opposed to Cambridge Center. It is one city with a line drawn through it. As opposed to Minneapolis St Paul that are truly 2 cities that grew together.
Columbus, Las Vegas, Portland Ore, Baltimore, don't have secondary cities. ( I would put Vancouver WA in a Cambridge Situation)
For purposes of this thread I would also include suburbs in addition to secondary cities.

For example, Sandy Springs, Georgia (101,908) would count as a large secondary city/suburb for Atlanta's metro.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2016, 12:23 PM
 
1,290 posts, read 1,124,311 times
Reputation: 2152
In general northern, older cities have many more suburbs where as many southern cities have gigantic physical city boundaries.

Houston and Jacksonville for example are just enormous. Where as cities like Minneapolis and Chicago and Milwaukee are hemmed in entirely by multiple levels of suburbs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2016, 01:05 PM
 
Location: Seattle WA, USA
3,929 posts, read 2,213,027 times
Reputation: 2610
Quote:
Originally Posted by btownboss4 View Post
I think there has to be a distinction between something like Cambridge/Boston and Minneapolis/ St Paul.
Cambridge basically Boston sprawl. If you look the major employment center in Cambridge it is Kendall Sq, immediately adjacent to Downtown Boston, as opposed to Cambridge Center. It is one city with a line drawn through it. As opposed to Minneapolis St Paul that are truly 2 cities that grew together.
Columbus, Las Vegas, Portland Ore, Baltimore, don't have secondary cities. ( I would put Vancouver WA in a Cambridge Situation)
I think Vancouver is separate from Portland, and it was founded even earlier than Portland. Furthermore Vancouver isn't the only large suburb, both Gresham and Hillsboro are +100,000 and Beaverton has ~93,000. Furthermore Salem is in Portlands CSA and has a population of ~160,000.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2016, 01:26 PM
Status: "Get off my cloud !" (set 19 days ago)
 
Location: Beautiful Northwest Houston
5,092 posts, read 4,939,539 times
Reputation: 4176
I cannot think of one suburb of San Antonio that is more than 10 to 20 k. My first thought was Houston but when you guys started calling 80 and 90 k large that ruled out Houston. So I guess I'm back to San Antonio, city pop 1.3 mil metro 2.3 mil in 7,400 square miles, that doesn't leave a lot of room for any large suburbs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2016, 02:08 PM
 
7,702 posts, read 4,557,747 times
Reputation: 8414
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Lance View Post
I cannot think of one suburb of San Antonio that is more than 10 to 20 k. My first thought was Houston but when you guys started calling 80 and 90 k large that ruled out Houston. So I guess I'm back to San Antonio, city pop 1.3 mil metro 2.3 mil in 7,400 square miles, that doesn't leave a lot of room for any large suburbs.
New Braunsfels.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2016, 04:33 PM
Status: "Get off my cloud !" (set 19 days ago)
 
Location: Beautiful Northwest Houston
5,092 posts, read 4,939,539 times
Reputation: 4176
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladhands View Post
New Braunsfels.

If you call 70k large then I am mistaken, but I think San Antonio fits the OP the best of any suggestions so far. BTW New Braunsfels was only 57k in the 2010 census so a lot of that population has come very recently. The next largest suburb Schertz comes in at 35k...
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