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 08-06-2010, 05:42 AM
 
976 posts, read 1,880,126 times
Reputation: 606

Advertisements

if you consider city population to be more influential than metro, than you must believe that el paso, tx is more important than boston, jacksonville, fl more important than seattle, wichita, ks more important than pittsburgh, etc. etc.

city population means asbolutely nothing anymore, as most older big cities have relatively small physical city boundaries. my current city, st. louis, has a number of inner-ring suburbs that are more urban in nature than most central cities in the sunbelt. urbanized area is a good measure as well, which accounts for only the continuously developed area within metro areas:

List of United States urban areas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-06-2010, 05:56 AM
 
Location: Orlando, FL
1,988 posts, read 6,372,303 times
Reputation: 645
I agree with many who have commented that Metro population is much more meaningful and indicative to a cities influence and importance than the city population. These city boundaries are usually divised to legislate community services, utilities, taxes, etc. Jobs, population, GDP, amenities, etc are all better indicators of the importance of an area. Many metro areas have their zoos, jobs, attractions, sizable neighborhoods, etc in the surburbs. Just my two cents...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2010, 06:13 AM
 
335 posts, read 564,420 times
Reputation: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by knke0204 View Post
MPLS

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

How about Las Vegas

558,383/1,865,746 = 29%
I guess st. paul is just a suburb with 300,000 people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2010, 10:13 AM
 
346 posts, read 652,225 times
Reputation: 220
well what about cities with huge metro areas but they are not concentrated around an urban core at all, I see what your saying but in reality the number of people living in a dense urban center has much more to do with the feel of the city. And no im not saying that el paso is more urban than boston, im only saying what I wrote without puting words in my mouth. Cities with extremely low square milages are an exception, as in under 100 from the argument of city population being more important. But truth be told after the first three theres a huge toss up on which cities feel more urban, from DFW to Boston there are 7 cities all of which within 2 million of each other and you can not say that there urban feel goes acording to there metro populations with dallas feeling more urban than houson, to philly, to miami ect ect. San francisco isn't even in the top ten on metro populations but is about the second most urban place i have ever been after chicago never been to N.Y. Just something to think about while saying that metro population makes a city what it is. And IMO I don't think dallas feels as urban as the next 6 cities on the list all the way down to boston. Nuthing against dallas as many people don't want to live in a packed gritty ultra urban city, so they sprad the city out, have a little more space, swimming pool and BBQ pit lol.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2010, 11:11 AM
 
10,930 posts, read 5,040,103 times
Reputation: 4890
Metro areas, for sure. Mainly because it's the most direct way to compare urban areas since older cities often don't have the ability/luxury of annexation like some of the newer cities do.

However, that being said, metro area (MSA) definition sometimes can be so convoluted and confusing that certain areas (particularly areas with multiple large cities, or multi-nodal areas with employment areas outside of the city center) don't get represented well or accurately. Good examples being: SF-Oakland MSA being separate from the SJ MSA; or Baltimore MSA and MSA DC being separate. These areas then become underrepresented.

You could use CSA's, but I think those include areas that are too removed from the urban cities to be considered part of the metro areas. I don't know if there's a better way to properly represent the population of these more tricky-to-define metro areas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2010, 03:06 PM
 
Location: Rochester
94 posts, read 216,503 times
Reputation: 60
I take metro population. The strength of the city is usually determined by the the size of the metropolitan area. For example, San Antonio is four times the size of Minneapolis. But does that make San Antonio a city with more amenities and entertainment. NO! Minneapolis has:

19 fortune 500 companies
more entertainment
four major professional sports

versus

5 fortune 500 companies
1 major professional sports

If Minneapolis didn't have St. Paul, and the suburbs, everything in Minneapolis would struggle if not fail.

This is why I look at metros for population.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2010, 04:09 PM
 
2,097 posts, read 5,871,113 times
Reputation: 918
I don't pay attention to any. Somehow, Akron isn't even in Cleveland's metro and it's a bordering county. LOL And 5 million people live in Northeast Ohio, yet NONE are connected? I'm sure....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2010, 08:51 PM
 
1,250 posts, read 2,117,296 times
Reputation: 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by slengel View Post
if you consider city population to be more influential than metro, than you must believe that el paso, tx is more important than boston, jacksonville, fl more important than seattle, wichita, ks more important than pittsburgh, etc. etc.

city population means asbolutely nothing anymore, as most older big cities have relatively small physical city boundaries. my current city, st. louis, has a number of inner-ring suburbs that are more urban in nature than most central cities in the sunbelt. urbanized area is a good measure as well, which accounts for only the continuously developed area within metro areas:

List of United States urban areas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
St. Louis is a good example of having a lot of the urbanized area and even urban core spills outside of the city limits due to small physical size of the city. This is a good example of how it might be best to use urban area population instead of City (too narrow which could cut out dense areas outside of city limits) or Metro (counts for a lot of hinterland which while connected is distinct in nature).

I am thinking at what point should a metro be considered to have more than one focal point in there? I am looking at examples where there are more than one residental and/or employment core that is not connected but within the same metro.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2010, 11:32 PM
 
Location: Thornrose
892 posts, read 1,930,026 times
Reputation: 1288
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milwaukee City View Post
So here is my question? Can one take pride in their cities population even though their metro maybe small? For instance Milwaukee has 605,000 people in it's city but metro is 2,000,000 at best. So if we are going by city pop Milwaukee is one of the bigger cities right behind Boston at 609,000 and Milwaukee is bigger than Denver and Seattle and St.Louis. Milwaukee is 23rd in terms of city population and when it comes to metro well, we are #32 right next to Columbus, OH. However a lot of people don't consider Columbus a big city.

So can I take pride knowing Milwaukee has a decent city population but a rather weak metro population?

So what's more important? city pop or metro pop? or is city population just a side note?
A 2 million metro may not look big compared to NYC's mammoth 20+ million metro, but 2 million is still a lot of people and I personally feel that is a big city. And yes, I also agree that metro population is way more important than actual city population.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2010, 11:34 PM
 
Location: Rio Grande Valley/Tone City
362 posts, read 941,487 times
Reputation: 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by MINresident View Post
I take metro population. The strength of the city is usually determined by the the size of the metropolitan area. For example, San Antonio is four times the size of Minneapolis. But does that make San Antonio a city with more amenities and entertainment. NO! Minneapolis has:

19 fortune 500 companies
more entertainment
four major professional sports

versus

5 fortune 500 companies
1 major professional sports

If Minneapolis didn't have St. Paul, and the suburbs, everything in Minneapolis would struggle if not fail.

This is why I look at metros for population.
I would think San Antonio has more entertainment.

San Antonio can support more sports teams but major league teams are not expanding at the moment, plus minneapolis is the only city in MN representing that entire state. If San Antonio was the only city in Texas it would have all the major league teams. If i'm not mistaken Texas has the most F500 companies in the country and lots of major cities and less little houses on the prairie.
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