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 04-03-2018, 09:58 PM
 
Location: Mishawaka, Indiana
6,514 posts, read 9,072,974 times
Reputation: 5010

Advertisements

It pains me to look at these posts and think that posters actually believe city populations to be a true representation of how large the area is and the natural amenities a city may have or not have regarding its size. City population is completely useless and irrelevant to the true measuring stick, which is MSA. One city having over 300 square miles of land compared to another city with just 50 miles of land, which do you think will have the higher population? It's the smaller cities, in terms of land, that tend to be more dense, and with more un-annexed suburbs and nearby towns.

Should be, U.S. cities metro areas that surprised you.

For metro areas, I was surprised by New Orleans. Such a well known and highly recognized city, with a metro population of just 1.3 million. The skyline is much more defined than many cities twice its size.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-03-2018, 10:00 PM
 
Location: Mishawaka, Indiana
6,514 posts, read 9,072,974 times
Reputation: 5010
Quote:
Originally Posted by American Expat View Post
Greenville, SC has a population of 58K in the 2010 census and it feels closer to a million.


phoenix doesn't seem that hectic and has a population of 1.5M+
That's because Greenville Metro population is 885,000.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2018, 10:02 PM
 
Location: Mishawaka, Indiana
6,514 posts, read 9,072,974 times
Reputation: 5010
Quote:
Originally Posted by 908Boi View Post
Columbus is much bigger than i thought it would be
Atlanta and Miami are much smaller than i thought it would be.
Miami MSA - 6 million
Atlanta MSA - 5.5 million
Columbus MSA - 2.1 million

Does that come closer to what you thought it was? Because that's the metro population, a much more accurate figure to use when comparing city size.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2018, 10:28 PM
 
Location: Mexico City, formerly Columbus, Ohio
13,106 posts, read 13,507,872 times
Reputation: 5788
I posted this information a while back, but here's a repeat comparing city population by standardized area size. The information is from 2010.


To compare, let's take the smallest area size of the top 50 largest cities, which is San Francisco's 36 square miles. I can't compare exactly at 36. The closest I can come is 28.3. I could also only do the comparison with cities that weren't part of a metro, so it excludes those like St. Paul and Fort Worth.


So here would be the top 50 largest cities by population if they were all a little smaller than San Francisco's 2010 city area size and their rank difference compared to now, if any difference.


1. New York: 1,455,020 0
2. Los Angeles: 788,989 0
3. Philadelphia: 674,481 +3
4. Boston: 630,930 +18
5. San Francisco: 608,704 +8
6. Chicago: 508,949 -3
7. Washington, DC: 472,291 +14
8. San Jose, CA: 411,306 +2
9. Baltimore: 391,742 +21
10. Las Vegas: 327,258 +18
11. Minneapolis: 325,198 +35
12. Milwaukee: 319,111 +19
13. Providence, RI: 317,761 +124
14. Denver: 309,360 +5
15. San Diego: 282,490 -7
16. Pittsburgh: 275,312 +47
17. Honolulu: 273,958 +38
18. Miami: 262,246 +24
19. Houston: 262,029 -15
20. Portland, OR: 253,691 +6
21. Rochester, NY: 250,998 +86
22. New Orleans: 250,422 +27
23. San Antonio: 250,099 -16
24. Seattle: 246,279 -6
25. Fresno: 239,305 +9
26. Oxnard, CA: 232,737 +82
27. Bridgeport, CT: 224,946 +153
28. Dallas: 221,527 -19
29. Columbus: 221,466 -14
30. Atlanta: 221,432 +8
31. New Haven, CT: 218,227 +179
32. Sacramento: 216,795 +3
33. Austin: 212,985 -22
34. Hartford, CT: 212,107 +187
35. Cincinnati: 205,624 +30
36. Modesto, CA: 203,949 +77
37. Stockton, CA: 203,932 +25
38. Syracuse: 199,986 +145
39. Phoenix: 198,191 -34
40. Bakersfield, CA: 198,077 +13
41. Springfield, MA: 191,181 +124
42. Tucson: 190,805 -9
43. Worcester, MA: 186,577 +88
44. Allentown, PA: 185,185 +187
45. Grand Rapids: 184,887 +76
46. Salt Lake City: 182,922 +77
47. Santa Rosa, CA: 179,408 +95
48. Akron: 177,674 +70
49. Riverside, CA: 177,330 +10
50. Trenton, NJ: 177,202 Unknown- not even ranked in the largest 300 cities.


With this list, cities with low urban population or large boundaries tended to fall. Some cities currently in the top 20 didn't even rank in the top 50 at this size, like Indianapolis and Charlotte, among others.


On the opposite end, the city with the largest area size in the current top 50 is Jacksonville, Florida, at 747 square miles. What would the top 50 look like at that size? Again, I couldn't get it exact- the closest is 709 square miles.

1. New York: 10,805,994 0
2. Los Angeles: 6,314,836 0
3. Chicago: 3,827,875 0
4. Philadelphia: 3,275,728 +2
5. Washington, DC: 3,039,444 +16
6. Houston: 2,783,903 -2
7. Dallas: 2,352,799 +2
8. Boston: 2,418,039 +14
9. Phoenix: 2,298,350 -4
10. Miami: 2,225,294 +32
11. San Francisco: 2,179,786 +2
12. Denver: 2,174,178 +7
13. Minneapolis: 2,069,082 +33
14. Detroit: 1,930,481 +9
15. Riverside, CA: 1,981,997 +44
16. San Diego: 1,882,993 -8
17. Atlanta: 1,877,599 +21
18. Baltimore: 1,877,086 +12
19. Las Vegas: 1,866,997 +9
20. Portland: 1,810,420 +6
21. San Jose: 1,646,340 -11
22. Seattle: 1,642,182 -4
23. San Antonio: 1,593,872 -16
24. Orlando: 1,504,709 +49
25. Sacramento: 1,469,706 +10
26. St. Louis: 1,452,667 +35
27. Columbus: 1,334,289 -13
28. Pittsburgh: 1,312,603 +35
29. Cleveland: 1,298,074 +22
30. Indianapolis: 1,296,740 -16
31. Cincinnati: 1,227,419 +34
32. Tampa: 1,220,885 +20
33. Kansas City, MO: 1,215,077 +4
34. Milwaukee: 1,155,096 -3
35. Charlotte: 1,092,985 -18
36. Austin: 1,072,357 -25
37. Providence: 1,043,943 +100
38. Hartford: 956,152 +183
39. Louisville: 953,515 -10
40. Jacksonville, FL: 942,114 -28
41. Salt Lake City: 935,724 +82
42. Oklahoma City: 914,188 -15
43. Buffalo: 908,828 +38
44. Raleigh, NC: 889,128 -3
45. Memphis: 883,446 -20
46. Richmond, VA: 869,596 +52
47. Tucson: 845,785 -14
48. New Orleans: 830,968 +1
49. Honolulu: 825,903 +6
50. Nashville: 824,908 -26


Again, the least dense cities tend to suffer, even those with large boundaries.



Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2018, 06:14 AM
 
Location: The City
22,341 posts, read 32,197,706 times
Reputation: 7744
interesting on the above
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2018, 07:56 AM
 
Location: Miami-Jax
6,319 posts, read 6,987,783 times
Reputation: 3504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Around View Post
Jax was a city of 200k before they annexed their ENTIRE COUNTY (with a couple tiny exceptions) back in the 1960s. This propelled them to the largest city in the state where they remain today.
You are absolutely correct about what you say above, but I want to add Jax was the largest city in the state of FL from sometime in the 1890s until the 1940s, without annexation. By 1950 Miami had overtaken, 1960 Tampa had overtaken, and the subsequent annexation thrust Jacksonville back to the top by 1970.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81 View Post
I posted this information a while back, but here's a repeat comparing city population by standardized area size. The information is from 2010.
Wow a lot of work there. Good job.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2018, 08:07 AM
 
Location: Mexico City, formerly Columbus, Ohio
13,106 posts, read 13,507,872 times
Reputation: 5788
The takeaway is that many Sun Belt cities have inflated rankings due to large area size, while many older Northern cities rank lower than they really are.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2018, 10:27 AM
 
Location: Miami
14 posts, read 8,024 times
Reputation: 49
Interesting comparison. A couple points: The land area listed for San Francisco is incorrect. The land area of San Francisco is 47 square miles (46.89), not 36 square miles. Also, San Francisco is not the smallest city by land area in the top 50 US cities by population. Miami is the smallest by land area with and area of 36 square miles (35.99). Maybe you got Miami and San Francisco mixed up in your post? I'm not sure how this would change the estimates (that would require math).


Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81 View Post
I posted this information a while back, but here's a repeat comparing city population by standardized area size. The information is from 2010.


To compare, let's take the smallest area size of the top 50 largest cities, which is San Francisco's 36 square miles. I can't compare exactly at 36. The closest I can come is 28.3. I could also only do the comparison with cities that weren't part of a metro, so it excludes those like St. Paul and Fort Worth.


So here would be the top 50 largest cities by population if they were all a little smaller than San Francisco's 2010 city area size and their rank difference compared to now, if any difference.


1. New York: 1,455,020 0
2. Los Angeles: 788,989 0
3. Philadelphia: 674,481 +3
4. Boston: 630,930 +18
5. San Francisco: 608,704 +8
6. Chicago: 508,949 -3
7. Washington, DC: 472,291 +14
8. San Jose, CA: 411,306 +2
9. Baltimore: 391,742 +21
10. Las Vegas: 327,258 +18
11. Minneapolis: 325,198 +35
12. Milwaukee: 319,111 +19
13. Providence, RI: 317,761 +124
14. Denver: 309,360 +5
15. San Diego: 282,490 -7
16. Pittsburgh: 275,312 +47
17. Honolulu: 273,958 +38
18. Miami: 262,246 +24
19. Houston: 262,029 -15
20. Portland, OR: 253,691 +6
21. Rochester, NY: 250,998 +86
22. New Orleans: 250,422 +27
23. San Antonio: 250,099 -16
24. Seattle: 246,279 -6
25. Fresno: 239,305 +9
26. Oxnard, CA: 232,737 +82
27. Bridgeport, CT: 224,946 +153
28. Dallas: 221,527 -19
29. Columbus: 221,466 -14
30. Atlanta: 221,432 +8
31. New Haven, CT: 218,227 +179
32. Sacramento: 216,795 +3
33. Austin: 212,985 -22
34. Hartford, CT: 212,107 +187
35. Cincinnati: 205,624 +30
36. Modesto, CA: 203,949 +77
37. Stockton, CA: 203,932 +25
38. Syracuse: 199,986 +145
39. Phoenix: 198,191 -34
40. Bakersfield, CA: 198,077 +13
41. Springfield, MA: 191,181 +124
42. Tucson: 190,805 -9
43. Worcester, MA: 186,577 +88
44. Allentown, PA: 185,185 +187
45. Grand Rapids: 184,887 +76
46. Salt Lake City: 182,922 +77
47. Santa Rosa, CA: 179,408 +95
48. Akron: 177,674 +70
49. Riverside, CA: 177,330 +10
50. Trenton, NJ: 177,202 Unknown- not even ranked in the largest 300 cities.


With this list, cities with low urban population or large boundaries tended to fall. Some cities currently in the top 20 didn't even rank in the top 50 at this size, like Indianapolis and Charlotte, among others.


On the opposite end, the city with the largest area size in the current top 50 is Jacksonville, Florida, at 747 square miles. What would the top 50 look like at that size? Again, I couldn't get it exact- the closest is 709 square miles.

1. New York: 10,805,994 0
2. Los Angeles: 6,314,836 0
3. Chicago: 3,827,875 0
4. Philadelphia: 3,275,728 +2
5. Washington, DC: 3,039,444 +16
6. Houston: 2,783,903 -2
7. Dallas: 2,352,799 +2
8. Boston: 2,418,039 +14
9. Phoenix: 2,298,350 -4
10. Miami: 2,225,294 +32
11. San Francisco: 2,179,786 +2
12. Denver: 2,174,178 +7
13. Minneapolis: 2,069,082 +33
14. Detroit: 1,930,481 +9
15. Riverside, CA: 1,981,997 +44
16. San Diego: 1,882,993 -8
17. Atlanta: 1,877,599 +21
18. Baltimore: 1,877,086 +12
19. Las Vegas: 1,866,997 +9
20. Portland: 1,810,420 +6
21. San Jose: 1,646,340 -11
22. Seattle: 1,642,182 -4
23. San Antonio: 1,593,872 -16
24. Orlando: 1,504,709 +49
25. Sacramento: 1,469,706 +10
26. St. Louis: 1,452,667 +35
27. Columbus: 1,334,289 -13
28. Pittsburgh: 1,312,603 +35
29. Cleveland: 1,298,074 +22
30. Indianapolis: 1,296,740 -16
31. Cincinnati: 1,227,419 +34
32. Tampa: 1,220,885 +20
33. Kansas City, MO: 1,215,077 +4
34. Milwaukee: 1,155,096 -3
35. Charlotte: 1,092,985 -18
36. Austin: 1,072,357 -25
37. Providence: 1,043,943 +100
38. Hartford: 956,152 +183
39. Louisville: 953,515 -10
40. Jacksonville, FL: 942,114 -28
41. Salt Lake City: 935,724 +82
42. Oklahoma City: 914,188 -15
43. Buffalo: 908,828 +38
44. Raleigh, NC: 889,128 -3
45. Memphis: 883,446 -20
46. Richmond, VA: 869,596 +52
47. Tucson: 845,785 -14
48. New Orleans: 830,968 +1
49. Honolulu: 825,903 +6
50. Nashville: 824,908 -26


Again, the least dense cities tend to suffer, even those with large boundaries.



Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2018, 01:01 PM
 
Location: Mexico City, formerly Columbus, Ohio
13,106 posts, read 13,507,872 times
Reputation: 5788
Quote:
Originally Posted by TropicalFreezing View Post
Interesting comparison. A couple points: The land area listed for San Francisco is incorrect. The land area of San Francisco is 47 square miles (46.89), not 36 square miles. Also, San Francisco is not the smallest city by land area in the top 50 US cities by population. Miami is the smallest by land area with and area of 36 square miles (35.99). Maybe you got Miami and San Francisco mixed up in your post? I'm not sure how this would change the estimates (that would require math).
You're, correct. I mixed them up somehow. However, it wouldn't change the actual numbers/rankings at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2018, 01:08 PM
 
56,749 posts, read 81,082,761 times
Reputation: 12550
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81 View Post
I posted this information a while back, but here's a repeat comparing city population by standardized area size. The information is from 2010.


To compare, let's take the smallest area size of the top 50 largest cities, which is San Francisco's 36 square miles. I can't compare exactly at 36. The closest I can come is 28.3. I could also only do the comparison with cities that weren't part of a metro, so it excludes those like St. Paul and Fort Worth.


So here would be the top 50 largest cities by population if they were all a little smaller than San Francisco's 2010 city area size and their rank difference compared to now, if any difference.


1. New York: 1,455,020 0
2. Los Angeles: 788,989 0
3. Philadelphia: 674,481 +3
4. Boston: 630,930 +18
5. San Francisco: 608,704 +8
6. Chicago: 508,949 -3
7. Washington, DC: 472,291 +14
8. San Jose, CA: 411,306 +2
9. Baltimore: 391,742 +21
10. Las Vegas: 327,258 +18
11. Minneapolis: 325,198 +35
12. Milwaukee: 319,111 +19
13. Providence, RI: 317,761 +124
14. Denver: 309,360 +5
15. San Diego: 282,490 -7
16. Pittsburgh: 275,312 +47
17. Honolulu: 273,958 +38
18. Miami: 262,246 +24
19. Houston: 262,029 -15
20. Portland, OR: 253,691 +6
21. Rochester, NY: 250,998 +86
22. New Orleans: 250,422 +27
23. San Antonio: 250,099 -16
24. Seattle: 246,279 -6
25. Fresno: 239,305 +9
26. Oxnard, CA: 232,737 +82
27. Bridgeport, CT: 224,946 +153
28. Dallas: 221,527 -19
29. Columbus: 221,466 -14
30. Atlanta: 221,432 +8
31. New Haven, CT: 218,227 +179
32. Sacramento: 216,795 +3
33. Austin: 212,985 -22
34. Hartford, CT: 212,107 +187
35. Cincinnati: 205,624 +30
36. Modesto, CA: 203,949 +77
37. Stockton, CA: 203,932 +25
38. Syracuse: 199,986 +145
39. Phoenix: 198,191 -34
40. Bakersfield, CA: 198,077 +13
41. Springfield, MA: 191,181 +124
42. Tucson: 190,805 -9
43. Worcester, MA: 186,577 +88
44. Allentown, PA: 185,185 +187
45. Grand Rapids: 184,887 +76
46. Salt Lake City: 182,922 +77
47. Santa Rosa, CA: 179,408 +95
48. Akron: 177,674 +70
49. Riverside, CA: 177,330 +10
50. Trenton, NJ: 177,202 Unknown- not even ranked in the largest 300 cities.


With this list, cities with low urban population or large boundaries tended to fall. Some cities currently in the top 20 didn't even rank in the top 50 at this size, like Indianapolis and Charlotte, among others.


On the opposite end, the city with the largest area size in the current top 50 is Jacksonville, Florida, at 747 square miles. What would the top 50 look like at that size? Again, I couldn't get it exact- the closest is 709 square miles.

1. New York: 10,805,994 0
2. Los Angeles: 6,314,836 0
3. Chicago: 3,827,875 0
4. Philadelphia: 3,275,728 +2
5. Washington, DC: 3,039,444 +16
6. Houston: 2,783,903 -2
7. Dallas: 2,352,799 +2
8. Boston: 2,418,039 +14
9. Phoenix: 2,298,350 -4
10. Miami: 2,225,294 +32
11. San Francisco: 2,179,786 +2
12. Denver: 2,174,178 +7
13. Minneapolis: 2,069,082 +33
14. Detroit: 1,930,481 +9
15. Riverside, CA: 1,981,997 +44
16. San Diego: 1,882,993 -8
17. Atlanta: 1,877,599 +21
18. Baltimore: 1,877,086 +12
19. Las Vegas: 1,866,997 +9
20. Portland: 1,810,420 +6
21. San Jose: 1,646,340 -11
22. Seattle: 1,642,182 -4
23. San Antonio: 1,593,872 -16
24. Orlando: 1,504,709 +49
25. Sacramento: 1,469,706 +10
26. St. Louis: 1,452,667 +35
27. Columbus: 1,334,289 -13
28. Pittsburgh: 1,312,603 +35
29. Cleveland: 1,298,074 +22
30. Indianapolis: 1,296,740 -16
31. Cincinnati: 1,227,419 +34
32. Tampa: 1,220,885 +20
33. Kansas City, MO: 1,215,077 +4
34. Milwaukee: 1,155,096 -3
35. Charlotte: 1,092,985 -18
36. Austin: 1,072,357 -25
37. Providence: 1,043,943 +100
38. Hartford: 956,152 +183
39. Louisville: 953,515 -10
40. Jacksonville, FL: 942,114 -28
41. Salt Lake City: 935,724 +82
42. Oklahoma City: 914,188 -15
43. Buffalo: 908,828 +38
44. Raleigh, NC: 889,128 -3
45. Memphis: 883,446 -20
46. Richmond, VA: 869,596 +52
47. Tucson: 845,785 -14
48. New Orleans: 830,968 +1
49. Honolulu: 825,903 +6
50. Nashville: 824,908 -26


Again, the least dense cities tend to suffer, even those with large boundaries.



Just curious, but would it be Buffalo at 21 and Rochester at 38? I ask because Buffalo is 40.6 square miles with about 260,000 people and Rochester is about 36 square miles with about 208,000 people.
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