Metro and city population, and how big a city feels (rentals, condos)

[ogre]

Originally Posted by uglyblackjohn

-Orge- I didn't even take into cosideration the nightlife aspect of a city. While L.A. is huge, it's only been recently (not since all those old theaters were in active use) that there have been reasons to be downtown at night. Staples Center, Dorothy Chandler, Disney and other venues have given the city a more urbane and less urban feel. Vegas, while more sprawling, always has something to do less than five minutes away. In Vegas, one could always meet someone from a different city, state or country and have a great conversation and a great time. I never thought about the cosmopolitan aspect of this question. ^^ Good post^^

I think it's generally more characteristic of the sprawling auto-age cities to have restaurants, entertainment, etc., scattered throughout the city. Before the 20th century, it was more convenient and efficient for people to ride streetcars to one central area that held most of a city's amenities. In cities that have experienced much of their growth more recently, land use patterns reflect the fact that people would drive all over the city, so there's not as much tendency for businesses to concentrate in one central area.

Another factor in the sense that there's a lot going on downtown is the compactness and density of older cities. I can use my home city of Boston as an example. Despite Boston's density, there are small sections of the central city that are dead by early evening. There is a downtown shopping district that empties out as soon as the stores closed. I once walked through there at about 7:00PM, and I was a little nervous, because this was during the winter, so it was dark at that time of night, and there was nothing but a bunch of buildings all closed up for the evening, and some questionable-looking street characters just kind of hanging around. Immediately east of the shopping district is the financial district, where most of the skyscrapers are. This area, too, empties out in the early evening, after most of the office workers go home. So there are these downtown areas that close early, even in a densely packed older city, but there's a difference between a city like Boston and a new-style city because of the concentration of activity in the close vicinity of these areas that go quiet by early evening.

It seems that certain functions that mainly operate in the day time occupy specialized sections of downtowns in many cities, and that these areas are largely devoid of activity and people by early evening. The difference between an old-style city like Boston and a classic Sun Belt city is that in the older cities most of the entertainment and culture is concentrated in an area immediately surrounding the stores and the skyscrapers. Walk two or three blocks in any direction from these evening dead zones and immediately you're into some active nightlife. In the newer cities, there won't be such a concentration of activity so close to those empty stores and office towers. The nightlife will be found more in pockets spread all over town. Though Las Vegas has some sprawl, maybe the fact that providing entertainment on a grand scale, for the whole country and a good chunk of the world, is its major industry causes the city to be saturated with nightlife, so this can be found nearby anywhere in the city, despite the usual tendency for these sorts of businesses to be spread out all over town in the newer-style cities. That diffuse distribution of many kinds of functions, including nightlife, characteristic of newer cities in general, would explain why even a huge city like Los Angeles might have little nightlife in or near downtown. It's not that the nightlife isn't there, just that it is not so concentrated as it would be in an old-style city.

[ogre]

It occurs to me that generally a larger metro area population will give the principal city a larger look and feel, but it may get a little more complicated than this. Sometimes the population beyond the official metro area may have an effect as well.

My example of how Columbus seemed to me like a large rather than a small city even back in the early '80's, when the metro population was only about 1.1 or 1.2 million, may partly be a result of population beyond the metro area. UglyBlackJohn made a point about the effect of geography. One such effect would be a city's location in relation to other cities. Ohio has one of the higher population densities of states outside the Northeast Corridor, yet its larger cities are distributed across the state in locations that leave Columbus standing alone. Cincinnati is close to a two-hour drive away. Cleveland is over two hours. There are really not even any mid-sized cities very close to Columbus, with Dayton being over an hour's drive away. The combination of Columbus's relative isolation from other large cities and the relatively high population density in the wider area surrounding this city makes it the principal city available to serve a wider population than just its official metro area population. Even though few people from outside the metro will commute to Columbus for work, many will likely make occasional visits for shopping, entertainment, or use of medical facilities or the airport. This will have an effect on the number of businesses, services, and facilities in the city. This city is the hub of a populous economic region larger than its metropolitan area, something which would not make it as large a city as it is, if the population of this wider region were smaller, or, conversely, if that population were great enough to put other large cities nearby, where they would grab some of the market for the wider region which, as a result of the actual situation, gravitates exclusively toward Columbus.

Another thought on the effect of metro area population: I would guess that sometimes it may take away from the apparent size and presence of a principal city. As a metro population grows, the suburbs will begin to have population centers large enough to siphon off some market population from the metro's primary city. Thus, for a time, the number and density of stores, facilities, buildings, and services in the primary city will stabilize until the metro area as a whole gains enough population to fuel growth in all or most of its service and commercial centers, including the primary city.

So, it does get complicated. It's probably not a cut-and-dried truth that metro area population, principal city population, urban area population, population of the wider economic region, or density of population in various parts of a metro area will always have a consistent effect from one city to another on how large the city seems to be, or how large it is in practical effective terms related to the actual presence of businesses, services, buildings, etc. Rather, these factors all contribute to a city's apparent size, but in different ways, and to different degrees, in the case of each city individually.

[UrbanQuest]

I have always thought that Combined Statistical Areas are the best measure of a cities size and importance. Of course you have to be flexible when comparing areas though. The Los Angeles CSA is much larger than Chicago, but the Chicago CBD blows LA's away. But when you compare the metros, LA has massive build up spanning over a hundred miles with satellite cities larger than many stand alone major cities in the country. Chicago does not even come close in comparison in this context. The only problem with CSA's is when you have the marrying of two almost seemingly distinct cities into one CSA. Washington/Baltimore and Boston/Providence would be prime examples of this. If you are flexible in comparing places however you will see that the Washington/Baltimore area does really seem slightly larger than the Bay Area.

[south-to-west]

Originally Posted by ogre

It occurs to me that generally a larger metro area population will give the principal city a larger look and feel, but it may get a little more complicated than this. Sometimes the population beyond the official metro area may have an effect as well.

My example of how Columbus seemed to me like a large rather than a small city even back in the early '80's, when the metro population was only about 1.1 or 1.2 million, may partly be a result of population beyond the metro area. UglyBlackJohn made a point about the effect of geography. One such effect would be a city's location in relation to other cities. Ohio has one of the higher population densities of states outside the Northeast Corridor, yet its larger cities are distributed across the state in locations that leave Columbus standing alone. Cincinnati is close to a two-hour drive away. Cleveland is over two hours. There are really not even any mid-sized cities very close to Columbus, with Dayton being over an hour's drive away. The combination of Columbus's relative isolation from other large cities and the relatively high population density in the wider area surrounding this city makes it the principal city available to serve a wider population than just its official metro area population. Even though few people from outside the metro will commute to Columbus for work, many will likely make occasional visits for shopping, entertainment, or use of medical facilities or the airport. This will have an effect on the number of businesses, services, and facilities in the city. This city is the hub of a populous economic region larger than its metropolitan area, something which would not make it as large a city as it is, if the population of this wider region were smaller, or, conversely, if that population were great enough to put other large cities nearby, where they would grab some of the market for the wider region which, as a result of the actual situation, gravitates exclusively toward Columbus.

Another thought on the effect of metro area population: I would guess that sometimes it may take away from the apparent size and presence of a principal city. As a metro population grows, the suburbs will begin to have population centers large enough to siphon off some market population from the metro's primary city. Thus, for a time, the number and density of stores, facilities, buildings, and services in the primary city will stabilize until the metro area as a whole gains enough population to fuel growth in all or most of its service and commercial centers, including the primary city.

So, it does get complicated. It's probably not a cut-and-dried truth that metro area population, principal city population, urban area population, population of the wider economic region, or density of population in various parts of a metro area will always have a consistent effect from one city to another on how large the city seems to be, or how large it is in practical effective terms related to the actual presence of businesses, services, buildings, etc. Rather, these factors all contribute to a city's apparent size, but in different ways, and to different degrees, in the case of each city individually.

Columbus isn't really that isolated compared to other cities. A two hour drive is nothing for someone out west or down south. However, I do get your point.

Isolation and being the "big kid on the block" over a large area helps to make a city cosmopolitan. Denver is a great example as its located over 7 hours from a major metro area. It has all the amenities of a "Top 10" major metro area, including a professional team for each one of the four major sports--also an MLS franchise; but the population of the metro (2.5 milliion) compared to major metros such as Dallas, Phoenix, Seattle, or Atlanta. Denver being the biggest city in the Mountain West, as well as being located in the most densely populated corridor in the Mountain West (Front Range), makes it the commercial and transportation center for the region--leading to a very cosmopolitan atmosphere that can hold its own with most major US cities outside of the Big 3.

[Spade]

Originally Posted by UrbanQuest

I have always thought that Combined Statistical Areas are the best measure of a cities size and importance. Of course you have to be flexible when comparing areas though. The Los Angeles CSA is much larger than Chicago, but the Chicago CBD blows LA's away. But when you compare the metros, LA has massive build up spanning over a hundred miles with satellite cities larger than many stand alone major cities in the country. Chicago does not even come close in comparison in this context. The only problem with CSA's is when you have the marrying of two almost seemingly distinct cities into one CSA. Washington/Baltimore and Boston/Providence would be prime examples of this. If you are flexible in comparing places however you will see that the Washington/Baltimore area does really seem slightly larger than the Bay Area.

the problem with the CSA format is that there is just to much. For Washington/Baltimore, there is a county in West Virginia counted. I don't think you feel like you're in Washington or Baltimore when you're in West Virginia. Same thing with Dallas/Ft. Worth. Athens County does not in any way feel like you are nearing the either city yet it is counted. I think either the MSA or the UA is the proper measure.

[Katiana]

Originally Posted by south-to-west

Columbus isn't really that isolated compared to other cities. A two hour drive is nothing for someone out west or down south. However, I do get your point.

Isolation and being the "big kid on the block" over a large area helps to make a city cosmopolitan. Denver is a great example as its located over 7 hours from a major metro area. It has all the amenities of a "Top 10" major metro area, including a professional team for each one of the four major sports--also an MLS franchise; but the population of the metro (2.5 milliion) compared to major metros such as Dallas, Phoenix, Seattle, or Atlanta. Denver being the biggest city in the Mountain West, as well as being located in the most densely populated corridor in the Mountain West (Front Range), makes it the commercial and transportation center for the region--leading to a very cosmopolitan atmosphere that can hold its own with most major US cities outside of the Big 3.

Just curious, what metro area is 7 hrs from Denver? Omaha and Salt Lake City are both 500 miles away, at least 8 hrs (usually takes us 9 to Omaha, more to SLC b/c you have to cross the mountain. Good post though, nice words for Denver.

[JMT]

Originally Posted by Katiana

Just curious, what metro area is 7 hrs from Denver? Omaha and Salt Lake City are both 500 miles away, at least 8 hrs (usually takes us 9 to Omaha, more to SLC b/c you have to cross the mountain. Good post though, nice words for Denver.

That drive between SLC and Denver is looong, but holy cow it's a beautiful drive. I think it's the most beautiful 500-mile drive in the country.

Anyway, Denver is less than 500 miles from Albuquerque which has a slightly larger metro population than Omaha, so I guess it would count.

[Katiana]

Albuquerque is 449 miles from Denver, per MapQuest, 6hr 39 min drive time. I just never think of ABQ, don't go there.

[vegaspilgrim]

Originally Posted by Katiana

Albuquerque is 449 miles from Denver, per MapQuest, 6hr 39 min drive time. I just never think of ABQ, don't go there.

Geographical ignorance? I think about Albuquerque all the time, actually! But then again I've always been oriented towards the desert southwest, whereas I've never even been to the midwest before. We spent a day there on my way back home from Phoenix. I'm even considered moving there, either in the near future (if for some reason Denver doesn't work out) or down the road, possibly. Interestingly, ABQ is the closest "big" city to Denver. While Denver is the bigger city, bigger economy, more things going on, etc, the New Mexican cuisine in Albuquerque is simply beyond comparison to what Denver offers.

[Katiana]

Maybe just a different "geographic orientation". DH is from Omaha, we go there a lot.