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 03-21-2018, 12:46 PM
 
Location: Clemson, SC by way of Tyler,TX
4,876 posts, read 3,002,451 times
Reputation: 3409

Advertisements

https://factualfacts.com/us-largest-cities/ Top 4 are in Alaska. Among the mainland we have Jacksonville, Houston, OKC and Phoenix.

What are the largest metro areas (by land) in the US?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-21-2018, 12:58 PM
 
619 posts, read 442,571 times
Reputation: 700
Just guessing I would say Phoenix, Riverside SB, new York, SLC, Denver, ATL, Houston, DFW, StL, Sacramento????
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2018, 01:12 PM
 
Location: Aurora, CO
6,569 posts, read 10,296,040 times
Reputation: 9838
Quote:
Originally Posted by atadytic19 View Post
Just guessing I would say Phoenix, Riverside SB, new York, SLC, Denver, ATL, Houston, DFW, StL, Sacramento????
The list Gaylord referenced is city proper. Denver proper really isn't that big compared to the heavyweights. It's 155 sq mi. Kansas City, for example, is more than twice Denver's size (319 sq mi).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2018, 04:19 PM
 
619 posts, read 442,571 times
Reputation: 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluescreen73 View Post
The list Gaylord referenced is city proper. Denver proper really isn't that big compared to the heavyweights. It's 155 sq mi. Kansas City, for example, is more than twice Denver's size (319 sq mi).
Did you read the question that he asked?
Let me ask you this, if he had a list for city proper why would he asked for them again?
Slow down and read the entire post
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2018, 06:59 PM
 
Location: Aurora, CO
6,569 posts, read 10,296,040 times
Reputation: 9838
Quote:
Originally Posted by atadytic19 View Post
Did you read the question that he asked?
Let me ask you this, if he had a list for city proper why would he asked for them again?
Slow down and read the entire post
You're right. Reading comprehension fail on my part. My bad. Metro KC is still slightly bigger than Metro Denver FWIW.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2018, 07:56 PM
 
3,967 posts, read 3,503,651 times
Reputation: 6384
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluescreen73 View Post
You're right. Reading comprehension fail on my part. My bad. Metro KC is still slightly bigger than Metro Denver FWIW.
I may be a bit off the theme of what you all are talking about but you made me think of something.

I did a study on this not too long ago, I wish I could find it. If you look at the 1950 population and land area Kansas City and Denver were very close in size. I have a theory based on annexation patterns from the 1960s through 2000 that Kansas city was able to hide the true level of decline it actually went through by annexing it's fleeing suburban tax base back. I would love to see how many people live in the original 80 sq mile border that comprised KC in the 1950s. My guess is you'd see a St Louis/Cincinatti pattern of population decline. I have not been to Kansas City, and I know that it appears to have stabilized, but my other guess is that one would still be able to see evidence of this decline in the neighborhoods surrounding it's core.

If other post industrial cities had the option to annex their hostile suburbs, they would have stayed more financially healthy. Their reputations for crime would have suffered less because the statistics of the bad neighborhoods would have been diluted by the stable suburban neighborhoods. In turn they would have been less subject to the severe decline, likely would have recovered quicker, and the notion of "Rustbelt" may have been a softer one.

Annexation laws are governed by state politics, usually you see annexation patterns reflected similarly by all cities in a state. What conditions were present that allowed Kansas City to annex massive suburban swaths and appear more healthy, while land locked St. Louis was suffocated by it's suburbs like Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati ect.. I think it might be a great case against the fractured regional metropolitan governments of the Northeast and Midwest, and in favor of the behemoth land masses that comprise so many sunbelt/southern/western cities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2018, 08:56 PM
 
Location: Clemson, SC by way of Tyler,TX
4,876 posts, read 3,002,451 times
Reputation: 3409
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjlo View Post
I may be a bit off the theme of what you all are talking about but you made me think of something.

I did a study on this not too long ago, I wish I could find it. If you look at the 1950 population and land area Kansas City and Denver were very close in size. I have a theory based on annexation patterns from the 1960s through 2000 that Kansas city was able to hide the true level of decline it actually went through by annexing it's fleeing suburban tax base back. I would love to see how many people live in the original 80 sq mile border that comprised KC in the 1950s. My guess is you'd see a St Louis/Cincinatti pattern of population decline. I have not been to Kansas City, and I know that it appears to have stabilized, but my other guess is that one would still be able to see evidence of this decline in the neighborhoods surrounding it's core.

If other post industrial cities had the option to annex their hostile suburbs, they would have stayed more financially healthy. Their reputations for crime would have suffered less because the statistics of the bad neighborhoods would have been diluted by the stable suburban neighborhoods. In turn they would have been less subject to the severe decline, likely would have recovered quicker, and the notion of "Rustbelt" may have been a softer one.

Annexation laws are governed by state politics, usually you see annexation patterns reflected similarly by all cities in a state. What conditions were present that allowed Kansas City to annex massive suburban swaths and appear more healthy, while land locked St. Louis was suffocated by it's suburbs like Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati ect.. I think it might be a great case against the fractured regional metropolitan governments of the Northeast and Midwest, and in favor of the behemoth land masses that comprise so many sunbelt/southern/western cities.
Interesting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2018, 08:16 PM
 
52 posts, read 18,177 times
Reputation: 27
Los Angeles metro is for sure in the top 10
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2018, 04:51 AM
 
Location: Phoenix
5,656 posts, read 7,461,568 times
Reputation: 4327
Here's the list from 2010 of Urban Areas by population density and land area:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...es_urban_areas
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2018, 08:04 AM
 
11,179 posts, read 22,400,541 times
Reputation: 10933
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjlo View Post
I may be a bit off the theme of what you all are talking about but you made me think of something.

I did a study on this not too long ago, I wish I could find it. If you look at the 1950 population and land area Kansas City and Denver were very close in size. I have a theory based on annexation patterns from the 1960s through 2000 that Kansas city was able to hide the true level of decline it actually went through by annexing it's fleeing suburban tax base back. I would love to see how many people live in the original 80 sq mile border that comprised KC in the 1950s. My guess is you'd see a St Louis/Cincinatti pattern of population decline. I have not been to Kansas City, and I know that it appears to have stabilized, but my other guess is that one would still be able to see evidence of this decline in the neighborhoods surrounding it's core.

If other post industrial cities had the option to annex their hostile suburbs, they would have stayed more financially healthy. Their reputations for crime would have suffered less because the statistics of the bad neighborhoods would have been diluted by the stable suburban neighborhoods. In turn they would have been less subject to the severe decline, likely would have recovered quicker, and the notion of "Rustbelt" may have been a softer one.

Annexation laws are governed by state politics, usually you see annexation patterns reflected similarly by all cities in a state. What conditions were present that allowed Kansas City to annex massive suburban swaths and appear more healthy, while land locked St. Louis was suffocated by it's suburbs like Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati ect.. I think it might be a great case against the fractured regional metropolitan governments of the Northeast and Midwest, and in favor of the behemoth land masses that comprise so many sunbelt/southern/western cities.
It's very similar with Indianapolis. The city was heavily democratic and had a strong say in regional matters. In the 1970's as a method to neutralize that the heavily republican suburban tracts were consolidated within the city to increase the city limits to roughly the size of the entire county itself. This immediately shifted the city and urban core from democratic to much more republican as a whole.

In looking at those old boundaries from consolidation to now the population has fallen from around 300,000 to 180,000. A 37% decline. The reason the city has continued to grow is it encompasses the entire county, so all new suburban style development has been within the new city limits.
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