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.
Same here. Sometimes I see people using the metro populations to describe how big a city is, but it's really the city proper populations that matter.
It depends on the context. Personally, I find metro areas/urbanized areas to be much more relevant metrics since they use a consistent criteria across all places whereas municipal boundaries are quite arbitrary. But I do understand how municipal population makes sense for cities like NYC.
DT Memphis (e.g. Main, Union, Riverside, Madison, etc), and East Memphis (Perkins, including Clark Tower Area all the way on Poplar maybe to edge of Germantown/International Paper plaza)
In threads like these I think it's better to look at the whole metro area instead of just the main city proper. The land area sizes of the major city propers around the U.S. are considerately different. When you look at the metropolitan area you can see what other downtown areas are close by no matter what the main city proper land area size is.
Last edited by pinytr; 05-08-2017 at 11:36 AM..
Reason: .
In threads like these I think it's better to look at the whole metro area instead of just the main city proper. The land area sizes of the major city propers around the U.S. are considerately different. When you look at the metropolitan area you can see what other downtown areas are close by no matter what the main city proper land area size is.
Actually, threads like this are when city limits are MOST important. Literally no one is surprised or impressed then a multi-nodal metro had multiple downtowns.
In threads like these I think it's better to look at the whole metro area instead of just the main city proper. The land area sizes of the major city propers around the U.S. are considerately different. When you look at the metropolitan area you can see what other downtown areas are close by no matter what the main city proper land area size is.
The thing is, provided the multiple cities are actually historic cities that grew together, and not jumped up suburbs (like Arlington, VA or Bellvue, WA) of course they will each have a downtown, because every city built out before 1900 (and most built out before say 1930) are going to have their own downtown commercial area.
Having two "downtowns" inside one city is more unique though, because it suggests at some point the powers that be decided that the first downtown didn't have enough capacity, and they needed to get a second one rolling.
The thing is, provided the multiple cities are actually historic cities that grew together, and not jumped up suburbs (like Arlington, VA or Bellvue, WA) of course they will each have a downtown, because every city built out before 1900 (and most built out before say 1930) are going to have their own downtown commercial area.
Having two "downtowns" inside one city is more unique though, because it suggests at some point the powers that be decided that the first downtown didn't have enough capacity, and they needed to get a second one rolling.
Or it may have been a previously independent community that was later annexed into a city.
There may also be the case of another part of the city having a substantial concentration of people via an institution or institutions like colleges(i.e.-Oakland in Pittsburgh, University Hill in Syracuse, Collegetown in Ithaca, etc.).
Cambridge for Boston, if it were actually part of Boston technically.
I tend to think of places as metros or urban areas, not cities, because that is kind of meticulous.
Cambridge is an entire city over 100k people. And a lot of it is really quiet and suburban. I don't think the central parts of Cambridge come anything close to a "downtown" vibe.
There may also be the case of another part of the city having a substantial concentration of people via an institution or institutions like colleges(i.e.-Oakland in Pittsburgh, University Hill in Syracuse, Collegetown in Ithaca, etc.).
Oakland was actually purpose-built to be a "second downtown" for Pittsburgh around 1900. The civic leaders at the time didn't like how grimy downtown had gotten, and decided to build up Oakland as a new "civic center" with the museums and cultural venues of the city. During the same time period the Carnegie Institute (a forerunner of CMU) was founded (1900) and University of Pittsburgh moved from Downtown (1909), but these were only bit parts in the original plan, which was much more ambitious. Later, as college enrollment ballooned, of course their prominence helped the neighborhood become more built out, but that was an affect of those early decisions, not the cause.
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.
