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 11-18-2009, 10:20 PM
 
Location: Armsanta Sorad
5,660 posts, read 6,851,273 times
Reputation: 2440

Advertisements

I guess Metro. I don't know if Los Angeles should be considered a metro and simply a large city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-18-2009, 10:26 PM
 
Location: Bay View, Milwaukee
2,169 posts, read 4,194,718 times
Reputation: 2707
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milwaukee City View Post
I do think it's fair to say that without the city the suburbs would be nothing.
That's true to an extent, but many of the suburbs are actually historic towns that eventually became engulfed by suburban sprawl. Without the city, Cedarburg and Brown Deer wouldn't be part of the metro web, but they might still be small-town modern-day "stagecoach stops." Nothing wrong with that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2009, 10:45 PM
 
Location: Bay View, Milwaukee
2,169 posts, read 4,194,718 times
Reputation: 2707
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milwaukee City View Post

So can I take pride knowing Milwaukee has a decent city population but a rather weak metro population?
I would think so. The high city/metro ratio suggests that sprawl hasn't hit Milwaukee as badly as with other cities. So, you can take pride in the fact that over 33% of the metro population lives in the city, whereas anchor cities in other metros tend to represent 10-20% of the metro population.

In some ways, your question has a corollary: "Can I take pride in the fact that Milwaukee did not experience the (positive) economic growth and (negative) sprawl that some other cities have?" If Milwaukee had experienced a more typical growth pattern, the city population might be around 300,000-400,000 and the metro might be 3,000,000+. There would be many good things from that, but perhaps less pride in a city beset by major population loss, and less pride in a quickly decentered and developed surburban fringe.

Quote:
So what's more important? city pop or metro pop? or is city population just a side note?
Metro population tends to get more prestige and is an economically and culturally more relevant concept. But for the continued vitality of an area, I think what really matters is balance between the city and suburban populations. An exaggerated example would be a metro area of 5,000,000 dispersed among scores of communities, and with 100,000 left in the anchor city. Lots of people overall, but the public face of the metro is diminished.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2009, 07:49 AM
 
Location: Philadelphia,New Jersey, NYC!
6,967 posts, read 18,206,495 times
Reputation: 2641
Quote:
Originally Posted by quijote View Post
I would think so. The high city/metro ratio suggests that sprawl hasn't hit Milwaukee as badly as with other cities. So, you can take pride in the fact that over 33% of the metro population lives in the city, whereas anchor cities in other metros tend to represent 10-20% of the metro population.

In some ways, your question has a corollary: "Can I take pride in the fact that Milwaukee did not experience the (positive) economic growth and (negative) sprawl that some other cities have?" If Milwaukee had experienced a more typical growth pattern, the city population might be around 300,000-400,000 and the metro might be 3,000,000+. There would be many good things from that, but perhaps less pride in a city beset by major population loss, and less pride in a quickly decentered and developed surburban fringe.



Metro population tends to get more prestige and is an economically and culturally more relevant concept. But for the continued vitality of an area, I think what really matters is balance between the city and suburban populations. An exaggerated example would be a metro area of 5,000,000 dispersed among scores of communities, and with 100,000 left in the anchor city. Lots of people overall, but the public face of the metro is diminished.
you have some very good points here. metro definitely gets more prestige. a lot of anchor cities aren't desirable because of the cramped conditions, crime, dirt, corruption, etc. (everything that comes along with cities) people would much rather live in big houses in a suburb.
and many look down upon the anchor cities with the whole "why would you want to live in that cesspool?" mentaility. i can't count the number of times suburban folks here tell me that "you couldn't pay them enough to live in philly." but they proudly boast to be from the lehigh valley or whatever with the whole "go philles!" lol
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2009, 08:02 AM
 
2,094 posts, read 5,869,272 times
Reputation: 918
Quote:
Northeast Ohio consists of 13 counties[1] and includes the cities of Cleveland, Akron, Canton, Lorain, Elyria, Medina, Ashtabula, Youngstown, and Warren. Northeast Ohio is home to approximately 4.5 million people, has a labor force of almost 2 million, and a gross regional product of more than US$134 billion.
I know metros are based off commute patterns, but considering I live in NE Ohio, I am always all around the area. It doesn't take me more then 45 minutes to get to any area listed above. I mean, Akron isn't even in Clevelands metro, and it's the neighboring county... with that alone the metro would be 3 million.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2010, 09:57 PM
 
Location: Cedar Park, TX
580 posts, read 940,509 times
Reputation: 389
I think you can have pride in your city without even considering population. I'm more for quality over quantity, I guess.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2010, 11:45 PM
 
Location: Upper East Side of Texas
12,521 posts, read 23,101,057 times
Reputation: 4890
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milwaukee City View Post
So what's more important? city pop or metro pop? or is city population just a side note?
Metro pop of course.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2010, 12:19 AM
 
Location: Tijuana Exurbs
4,000 posts, read 10,443,517 times
Reputation: 4725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akhenaton06 View Post
You make valid points, particularly since metros are county-based. That's what makes it tricky in some cases, like counties between DC and Baltimore that might be more or less split in their commuting patterns. You can't split a county between two metros, so the entire county population has to go to one or the other.
That's an important point that affects other metro areas as well. The counties as building blocks makes better sense in the eastern US where the counties are MUCH SMALLER than they are out west. The small county sizes in the east allow for slicing the population into finer, more accurate slices than it does out west.

Take for example Riverside County, a county with a huge land area and well over 2 million people. Because of commuting patterns, the LA CSA gets the entire 2 million added to it. However, if Riverside County had been subdivided into 3 or 4 different counties, the southwestern area, which includes the cities of Temecula and Murrietta would probably be part of San Diego's metropolitan area and add about 250k people to San Diego's MSA. However, because the Census Bureau only uses whole counties as building blocks for it's MSA's & CSA's, LA gets the whole thing.

The issues in the quoted post, are magnified ten fold when the counties become as large as Riverside County.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2010, 10:40 PM
 
Location: MN
3,798 posts, read 8,167,201 times
Reputation: 1809
MPLS

390,131/3,502,891 = 11.5%

How about Las Vegas

558,383/1,865,746 = 29%
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2010, 01:53 AM
 
Location: 602/520
2,441 posts, read 6,119,653 times
Reputation: 1815
Metro population. If we looked only at city population you would see that Tucson and Albuquerque have more people than Atlanta, Miami, Cincinnati, and Pittsburgh. Yet, when you factor in metro populations you see that Atlanta, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, and Miami are major cities.

Both Tucson and Albuquerque proper have 50-55 percent of their entire metro's population. Atlanta barely makes up 10 percent of its entire metro's population.
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