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 06-08-2007, 11:30 AM
 
Location: Katy-zuela
4,852 posts, read 8,994,029 times
Reputation: 2364

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spade View Post
again, you're looking at city population stats. Nobody care about city populations outside of Houston. Most people on various boards look at the metro population to tell which city is the bigger city. Not some arbitrary municipality. Hate to sound like a broken record but it's true. All those cities I named have a higher GDP than Houston, is considered much more urban than Houston and has a larger population in than Houston. Also, by saying Houston is the 4th city of the US ,you are assuming that Houston is the city of the south when it is clearly not. I'm sure people from similar sized metro's of Dallas, Atlanta, and Miami would disagree.
These MSA definitions are sometimes skewed. The Census bureau should merge the San Francisco and the San Jose MSAs. They are adjacent to each other and they watch the same TV and listen to the same radio. Their freeway and public transport systems interconnect. That alone will make DFW 5th place and move everyone else down by one. With that mentality why not separate Dallas and Fort Worth?

Los Angeles MSA is has multiple definitions. I consider the L.A. metro to include L.A. county, Orange County, and the Inland Empire (San Bernardino). But it gets separated for no good reason sometimes.

I would define a metro as being in the same broadcast area and have interconnecting transportation systems.

Second of all NYC, LA, and Chicago are on coasts. DFW, Atlanta, and Charlotte are very inland. Houston and Miami are on coasts, but the fact people are leaving Florida in general and with the growth rate of Houston, Miami is declining.

Last edited by KerrTown; 06-08-2007 at 12:00 PM.. Reason: coasts
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-08-2007, 02:41 PM
 
Location: Washington D.C. By way of Texas
18,633 posts, read 27,060,365 times
Reputation: 9577
Quote:
Originally Posted by KerrTown View Post
These MSA definitions are sometimes skewed. The Census bureau should merge the San Francisco and the San Jose MSAs. They are adjacent to each other and they watch the same TV and listen to the same radio. Their freeway and public transport systems interconnect. That alone will make DFW 5th place and move everyone else down by one. With that mentality why not separate Dallas and Fort Worth?
Well, under that logic, you actually do not need to separate Dallas and Fort Worth. Both are connected by the TRE commuter line. Both Dart and the T are constructing (Dart) or thinking about constructing lines(the T) to DFW airport. Dallas and Fort Worth functions as one. From downtown to downtown it's 30 minutes. But from city limits to city limits, it can be as little as 10 minutes.

MSA's maybe skewed. But they tell the true size of a city more than city limits do. If anything is skewed, it's city limits. Because each state has different rules on annexation and how you define it's city limits. If Houston was in another state, it would not have 2.2 million people. But I bet it would have 5.6 million in its MSA like it has now.

Quote:
Los Angeles MSA is has multiple definitions. I consider the L.A. metro to include L.A. county, Orange County, and the Inland Empire (San Bernardino). But it gets separated for no good reason sometimes.
True. The Los Angeles MSA is the Los Angeles-Long Beach MSA. It's still the 2nd largest MSA in the nation. The New York MSA is also broken down and it falls to just over 18 million, I believe.



Quote:
Second of all NYC, LA, and Chicago are on coasts. DFW, Atlanta, and Charlotte are very inland. Houston and Miami are on coasts, but the fact people are leaving Florida in general and with the growth rate of Houston, Miami is declining.
People aren't leaving Florida. Especially Miami. True it's growing slower than Houston. But it's still growing nonetheless. Florida is still the second fastest growing state in the country, though. Receiving over 321,000 people in raw growth. Which is second to Texas this past year.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2007, 04:12 PM
 
Location: Katy-zuela
4,852 posts, read 8,994,029 times
Reputation: 2364
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spade View Post
Well, under that logic, you actually do not need to separate Dallas and Fort Worth. Both are connected by the TRE commuter line. Both Dart and the T are constructing (Dart) or thinking about constructing lines(the T) to DFW airport. Dallas and Fort Worth functions as one. From downtown to downtown it's 30 minutes. But from city limits to city limits, it can be as little as 10 minutes.
Actually I was comparing the separation of San Francisco and San Jose to DFW. If they keep it that way, then DFW should be separated into Dallas and Fort Worth MSAs. Its not fair that San Francisco is divided up while L.A. is not. Don't forget D.C. and Baltimore was not separated until 2003. So if they were still together and the Bay Area is one MSA, DFW would be in 6th place and everyone else moves down by one.

If the Bay Area and Bal-DC were in one MSA, these are the most populous MSAs:
  1. New York City
  2. Los Angeles
  3. San Francisco
  4. Chicago
  5. Washington-Baltimore
Some MSAs may not have been created correctly in the first place. There are always redefinitions. I agree that MSAs are a good way to figure out population but incorrect boundaries can skew numbers to inaccuracy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2007, 05:17 PM
 
Location: Washington D.C. By way of Texas
18,633 posts, read 27,060,365 times
Reputation: 9577
Fair enough.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2007, 07:05 PM
 
Location: In God
3,073 posts, read 10,768,555 times
Reputation: 510
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spade View Post
If Houston was in another state, it would not have 2.2 million people.
You don't know that.

Okay, so if MSAs "truly" define a city, according to Spade, than what about Dallas', Miami's, San Francisco's, and Atlanta's MSAs?

You claim that most people would not argue Houston as the "fourth city", and that San Francisco would most likely be picked. But Houston's city proper, metro, and GMP are all larger than San Francisco's...

Houston's proper pop., metro, and GMP are all larger than Miami's and Atlanta's. Had it not been for an entire other large city, Houston would beat Dallas in all of those areas as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2007, 07:22 PM
 
Location: In God
3,073 posts, read 10,768,555 times
Reputation: 510
Anyway, we have fallen way off topic. As a matter of fact, I believe the conclusion of the thread has already been reached.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2007, 07:47 PM
 
Location: Washington D.C. By way of Texas
18,633 posts, read 27,060,365 times
Reputation: 9577
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpope409 View Post
You don't know that.
You're right, I don't. Here's what I do know. If every city had the same square mileage as Houston's. Then the city of Houston would not be the 4th largest in the country.

Quote:
Okay, so if MSAs "truly" define a city, according to Spade, than what about Dallas', Miami's, San Francisco's, and Atlanta's MSAs?
What about them? Two of them are bigger than Houston's, the other two are smaller.

Quote:
You claim that most people would not argue Houston as the "fourth city", and that San Francisco would most likely be picked. But Houston's city proper, metro, and GMP are all larger than San Francisco's...
Uh no, it's not. Houston's proper is larger because the area in it's city limits are larger. San Francisco is much much much more denser than Houston. If, again, San Francisco held that same density with that many square miles, it would be one of the largest cities in the world then. City limit populations are irrelevant. San Francisco's metro is also smaller in area as well. If you want to go CSA. San Francisco then has 7.1 million to Houston's 5.6. Now...as far as GMP. As of 2004, San Francisco was at 210 million. A whopping 4 million behind Houston. Placing Houston at number 8. Now if you put San Jose in the mix, San Francisco would catch and pass Houston's with ease. Cities that have a higher GMP than Houston are as followed :NY, LA, Chi, DC (Without B-more), Dallas, Philadelphia, and Boston.

Oh, and, The Bay Area has more Fortune 500 companies as well as more Fortune 1000 companies than Houston as well.
Quote:
Houston's proper pop., metro, and GMP are all larger than Miami's and Atlanta's. Had it not been for an entire other large city, Houston would beat Dallas in all of those areas as well.
Houston just reeeeecently passed Miami in MSA population and Atlanta is on your heels because it's growing faster. Miami doesn't have a CSA. But again, you're not that much bigger than either metro. BTW, Dallas w/o FT. Worth, has 220 million in it's GMP. That means, it would still be higher than Houston's.

Here is a quote that so eloquently summerizes what I'm trying to say about using the city as a crutch to say the city is more important or bigger.

Quote:
When you balance the rankings of places like Atlanta, Cleveland, St. Louis, Baltimore in comparison with the rankings for the likes of San Antonio, San Jose, Jacksonville, and Austin, you're hit by how irrelevant city populations truly are compared with metropolitan population.

What does it matter that Columbus has more people than Boston when metro Boston is much bigger and more important than metro Columbus....and Boston will always be a far greater and more important city than Columbnus?

Last edited by Spade; 06-08-2007 at 08:13 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2007, 08:21 PM
 
Location: In God
3,073 posts, read 10,768,555 times
Reputation: 510
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spade View Post
You're right, I don't. Here's what I do know. If every city had the same square mileage as Houston's. Then the city of Houston would not be the 4th largest in the country.
Again, you do not know that. You're basing this off of patterns that are evident today. Patterns change.


Quote:
What about them? Two of them are bigger than Houston's, the other two are smaller.
Um, no.

Quote:
Uh no, it's not. Houston's proper is larger because the area in it's city limits are larger. San Francisco is much much much more denser than Houston. If, again, San Francisco held that same density with that many square miles, it would be one of the largest cities in the world then. City limit populations are irrelevant. San Francisco's metro is also smaller in area as well. If you want to go CSA. San Francisco then has 7.1 million to Houston's 5.6. Now...as far as GMP. As of 2004, San Francisco was at 210 million. A whopping 4 million behind Houston. Placing Houston at number 8. Now if you put San Jose in the mix, San Francisco would catch and pass Houston's with ease. Cities that have a higher GMP than Houston are as followed :NY, LA, Chi, DC (Without B-more), Dallas, Philadelphia, and Boston.
First of all, if I don't care about MSAs what makes you think I'd pay attention to some crap called CSAs? Both are manipulative and skew realities to get results. You can say all you want about city propers being irrelevant, but there's a reason that our four largest cities are also our top most diverse and among the most of importance. Houston annexes, so what? New York annexed Brooklyn back in the days. Houston will make good use of its land soon enough. You mark my words. There's nothing you can tell or "teach" me that I haven't already heard.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2007, 08:53 PM
 
Location: Washington D.C. By way of Texas
18,633 posts, read 27,060,365 times
Reputation: 9577
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpope409 View Post
Again, you do not know that. You're basing this off of patterns that are evident today. Patterns change.
No, what I'm basing off of is density levels. If each city held the density level they have now with Houston's square mielage, Houston would not be the fourth largest city in the country.

Quote:
Um, no.
Dallas and San Francisco's metro areas are bigger. Atlanta's and Miami's metro areas are smaller.

Quote:
First of all, if I don't care about MSAs what makes you think I'd pay attention to some crap called CSAs? Both are manipulative and skew realities to get results. You can say all you want about city propers being irrelevant, but there's a reason that our four largest cities are also our top most diverse and among the most of importance. Houston annexes, so what? New York annexed Brooklyn back in the days. Houston will make good use of its land soon enough. You mark my words. There's nothing you can tell or "teach" me that I haven't already heard.
Of course you're not paying attention to MSA's. That's why you have a clouded judgement on which city is truly the bigger city. While I agree with KerrTown that there are some elements of the MSA that are skewed. None are more skewed than city limits.City's grow outside it's boundaries and thus influence everything is surrounding its arbitrary borders. As far as the rest of your comment. Let's hope so. Let's hope that Houston becomes more dense and urban. Let's hope it's mass transportation especially rail improves.Houston is far ahead of Dallas in developing it's downtown and it's ahead of Dallas by centrally locating all of it's activities inside the loop or close to downtown. Houston sees what it did wrong and is now trying to correct those errors. New York annexed. But it was already an very dense and urban city. And the city limits including Brooklyn is probably still smaller than Houston's inner loop.

But San Francisco is just as important and diverse. DC is just as important and diverse. Boston is just as important and diverse, Miami is also just as important an diverse, Dallas is just as important and diverse. Houston is alot closer than those cities I named than they are to the big 3 of Chicago, LA, and New York. But Houston is well on it's way to being one of those upper echelon of cities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2007, 10:04 PM
 
Location: In God
3,073 posts, read 10,768,555 times
Reputation: 510
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spade View Post
No, what I'm basing off of is density levels. If each city held the density level they have now with Houston's square mielage, Houston would not be the fourth largest city in the country.
Patterns, density levels. Same thing.


Quote:
Dallas and San Francisco's metro areas are bigger. Atlanta's and Miami's metro areas are smaller.
San Francisco's metro is not bigger. Dallas and Fort Worth's metro combined is bigger. That still leaves Houston at the top of the list.

Quote:
Of course you're not paying attention to MSA's. That's why you have a clouded judgement on which city is truly the bigger city.
That's really twisting it. Houston is bigger than each of those cities in every sense of the word.
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