Is Pittsburgh a "typical" city? (Philadelphia, York: land, rank)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Prior to the Poundstone Amendment, Denver was gobbling up land via annexation. The amendment effectively put a stop to the grab until 1989, when the City of Denver was in a world of hurt economically. Regardless, Denver was able to get on top of the post-WWII suburban boom thanks to annexation. In fact, Lakewood and Wheat Ridge were incorporated as a defense against Denver's rapid and aggressive annexation strategy.
I can see both sides. On the other, it can't possibly be cost-effective for a small area to have 120 (or whatever) police stations, fire depts, snow crews, city councils, etc.
As I pointed out earlier. Some municipalities are cooperating with their neighbors either by paying another municipality for police and fire protection, and sharing equipment. And some of these councils might serve for no pay.
So, if this is the person that you're citing that has stated that laws are different here in Pennsylvania, it's not in fact a meme on this board, but rather a local author that you take issue with? And, what exactly is incorrect about that statement, that Pennsylvania towns are required to garner a majority vote from subjects of annexation, or that other states do not require such things? I, myself, can't claim the validity of either statement.
I've heard it over and over on the Pittsburgh forum. I qoted a few posts in the other thread. My parents used to talk about it back in the 80s. Nothing is incorrect about Pennsylvania law that I know of, what is incorrect is that PA is not the only state to have such requirements.
Here's an interesting link about an old annexation law in PA:
How small Pittsburgh is in terms of square miles works well for the city in terms of feeling "typical". Pittsburgh though small in populatons, just over 300,000, feels bigger becuase it is dense, Cleveland is the same way. Have any of you been to Houston? The city sits on a little over 600 square miles and it has a population of just over two million people... The first time I was in Houston I had to be shown proof that Houston had two million people because it hardly seems like it. Pittsburgh feels like a big city, with all of the great, active neighborhoods, the hustle and bustle, etc. What is typical anyway? Is New York typical, if so then there is only maybe two or three "typical" cities on earth.
What is typical anyway? Is New York typical, if so then there is only maybe two or three "typical" cities on earth.
Obviously "typical" is subjective, but BrianTH suggested in another thread that "typical" cities have a population of about 25% of the population of the metropolitan area. I, personally, agree with this assessment.
This disparity in city-to-metro populations is precisely why when someone talks about how "big" a city is, I always refer to the population of the metro area to get a feel for it. My colleague was recently telling me about a trip to Columbus, OH and said it is about 3 times the size of Pittsburgh. I thought, that doesn't sound right, so I looked up the metro populations, and indeed Pittsburgh is a good bit larger than Columbus.
All of this definitely presents some confusion, and it often leads locals to believe that Pittsburgh is some tiny, insignificant city, when in fact we are a pretty large metro area, almost identical in size to Portland and Denver.
Obviously you can be talking about many different things when it comes to "typical"--as noted by another poster, I personally was referring to the percentage of the population of the metro area contained within the central city, which I think is a useful measure in certain contexts, but it is by no means intended as a universal measure of typicality.
And I would absolutely agree that there are cities which are atypically large on the other end, such that it is clear they contain a lot of what would be suburbs in a more typical city.
As I have suggested before, one way to hypothetically make Pittsburgh into a more "typical" city by this measure would be just to imagine it also including most of the adjacent municipalities, which happens to overlap CONNECT, a voluntary association between those municipalities (including the City). A hypothetical city including almost all of CONNECT's territory would be around that 25% metro-share mark, but would still exclude the vast majority of the existing suburbs, and would not include all of Allegheny County (imaging the City was as big as Allegheny County would make it atypically large in the sense I am using).
Of course such a hypothetical central city would remain atypical in many ways--indeed, our topography dictates atypical population patterns, and no adjustment of borders can make that effect go away.
Pittsburghers are more myopic than others I've encountered, making the city seem atypical. They think that they are the only place that has ever had a reassessment; they think they are the only city with non-profits and federal/state facilities gobbling up vast amounts of land; and they think they are the only city that hasn't been allowed to grow by annexation.
Almost every city, including Pittsburgh, has had broad annexation powers at the height of their growth. Then they abuse the annexation power and they are curtailed. Pittsburgh didn't annex just Allegheny City; it also annexed the boroughs of Birmingham, Allentown, Knoxville, Carrick, and Sheridan, among others. Dallas and Houston abused their annexation authority during the periods of their highest growth; Texas passed laws to curb their authorities, just like Pennsylvania did when Pittsburgh and other towns abused their authorities for annexation. The only difference is it occurred in Pennsylvania 60 years before it occurred in Texas. The city isn't really as atypical as they believe.
Obviously "typical" is subjective, but BrianTH suggested in another threadthat "typical" cities have a population of about 25% of the population of the metropolitan area. I, personally, agree with this assessment.
This disparity in city-to-metro populations is precisely why when someone talks about how "big" a city is, I always refer to the population of the metro area to get a feel for it. My colleague was recently telling me about a trip to Columbus, OH and said it is about 3 times the size of Pittsburgh. I thought, that doesn't sound right, so I looked up the metro populations, and indeed Pittsburgh is a good bit larger than Columbus.
All of this definitely presents some confusion, and it often leads locals to believe that Pittsburgh is some tiny, insignificant city, when in fact we are a pretty large metro area, almost identical in size to Portland and Denver.
Perhaps you, or Brian, could provide some documentation for the bold.
Pittsburghers are more myopic than others I've encountered, making the city seem atypical. They think that they are the only place that has ever had a reassessment; they think they are the only city with non-profits and federal/state facilities gobbling up vast amounts of land; and they think they are the only city that hasn't been allowed to grow by annexation.
Almost every city, including Pittsburgh, has had broad annexation powers at the height of their growth. Then they abuse the annexation power and they are curtailed. Pittsburgh didn't annex just Allegheny City; it also annexed the boroughs of Birmingham, Allentown, Knoxville, Carrick, and Sheridan, among others. Dallas and Houston abused their annexation authority during the periods of their highest growth; Texas passed laws to curb their authorities, just like Pennsylvania did when Pittsburgh and other towns abused their authorities for annexation. The only difference is it occurred in Pennsylvania 60 years before it occurred in Texas. The city isn't really as atypical as they believe.
When I moved to Denver as a young woman, after having grown up in Pittsburgh, I was surprised, truly surprised to find out that, just like Pittsburgh, Denver had its influential donor families (no one like A. Carnegie of course, but certainly people like the Mellons, the Scaifes, etc), nationally influential political families who also donated money for the public good (The Heinzes v. the Coors), etc. I had grown up being taught that kind of stuff only existed in Pittsburgh. Then I found out that yes, that sort of stuff exists in Omaha, my husband's hometown, as well. In re: annexation, Denver's annexation abilities were cut back in 1974. In short, I agree with the above.
Perhaps you, or Brian, could provide some documentation for the bold.
That was BrianTH's own assessment, as I pointed out. If you read the post I linked to, you can see the methodology he used.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
