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.
I think part of the reason for this is developable land and that development largely follows the lone interstate 26 and 526. Even though Charleston is a slightly bigger county compared to let’s say Richland county, there’s probably uncountable wetland areas, tidewater marshes, inlets and places where mass development isn’t feasible. Being hemmed in by the ocean as well and development not wanting to spread much further laterally away from the interstates helps this nicely packed urban area. It can pose problems but it’s quite nice from an urban aspect.
The main reason is simply because so many Greenville and Columbia residents arent in the city, but yes geography plays a role, though that makes more of argument to the density than the populations. A million poeple could fit in Charleston County. Still couldnt find any other similar examples regardless of geography, especially if you exclude consolidated city-counties.
The thing is most states have a clear #1 alpha city, and that alpha city makes an alpha county. There is no real alpha in SC. Greenville biggest county, Charleston biggest city, Columbia capital #2 in both. The only other state I can think of off the bat where theres an similar argument is Ohio.
The main reason is simply because so many Greenville and Columbia residents arent in the city, but yes geography plays a role, though that makes more of argument to the density than the populations. A million poeple could fit in Charleston County. Still couldnt find any other similar examples regardless of geography, especially if you exclude consolidated city-counties.
The thing is most states have a clear #1 alpha city, and that alpha city makes an alpha county. There is no real alpha in SC. Greenville biggest county, Charleston biggest city, Columbia capital #2 in both. The only other state I can think of off the bat where theres an similar argument is Ohio.
Charleston biggest single urbanized area by 35,000.
Charleston biggest single urbanized area by 35,000.
Bro, its not a competition... You reply to every one of my posts trying to argue about Charleston being #1 in some metric. I'm simply bringing up interesting info.
Fact of the matter is Charleston contains 3/5 largest cities including the largest, but is the 3rd largest county, and there is nowhere else in the US that has this, and it is because Greenville and Richland have more people living in CDPs than in the two cities. That's it.
That urbanized number includes Berkeley and Dorchester. It is irrelevant to the county point I was making. Also stressing "urbanized" over and over is a stretch. It is all sprawled suburbs. SC does not know what real urban is. Mt P is not midtown Atlanta. There is nothing urban about Berkeley.
What is your obsession with Charleston having a #1 status in everything. I'm not that obsessed with Charleston being #1, and I was actually born in Charleston. None of them are above the other.
Bro, its not a competition... You reply to every one of my posts trying to argue about Charleston being #1 in some metric. I'm simply bringing up interesting info.
Fact of the matter is Charleston contains 3/5 largest cities including the largest, but is the 3rd largest county, and there is nowhere else in the US that has this, and it is because Greenville and Richland have more people living in CDPs than in the two cities. That's it.
That urbanized number includes Berkeley and Dorchester. It is irrelevant to the county point I was making. Also stressing "urbanized" over and over is a stretch. It is all sprawled suburbs. SC does not know what real urban is. Mt P is not midtown Atlanta. There is nothing urban about Berkeley.
What is your obsession with Charleston having a #1 status in everything. I'm not that obsessed with Charleston being #1, and I was actually born in Charleston. None of them are above the other.
Just numbers. I’m careful with the wording when comparing places. When I say Berkeley, Dorchester, Richland, etc., I’m including the rural areas where people live, many of whom in no way think of themselves as part of any metro area. And in terms of how often many of them ever go anywhere in their county that’s even considered metro, let alone urban, they might as well live on the Alaska tundra. Tell someone from Swansea that they’re part of metro Columbia and they will likely say “no I ain’t” and point out the town’s new “Richly Rural” slogan. That doesn’t have anything to do with Richland County having more people than Charleston County, and I don’t care. Every county has its rural residents who don’t identify with a city or metro. It doesn’t have anything to do with the Columbia CBSA-MSA-whateverSA having more. None of that changes the fact that when we compare sizes of areas that are usually known by the name of their principle cities, it’s mostly the urbanized area (term used loosely as the Census Bureau uses it as opposed to urbanized-suburbanized area) that makes a city go ‘round. As I said before, the title “largest city” is just that, but I feel it is a title that is worth something. So is “largest urbanized area,” but we don’t hear much about that one. I’m not saying and never have insinuated that Charleston has emerged to become all mighty and powerful over Columbia or Greenville in terms of the state’s big three. But why even compare any of this if we’re not going to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. County versus county, fine. City versus city, great. CBSA versus CBSA, I’m down. Urbanized-suburbanized area versus urbanized-suburbanized area, woohoo. But among “places” the size of South Carolina’s big three, I do believe that having the edge in the urbanized-suburbanized area by 35,000 people also counts for something. A competition among the big three? A friendly one, but a competition nonetheless.
The main reason is simply because so many Greenville and Columbia residents arent in the city, but yes geography plays a role, though that makes more of argument to the density than the populations. A million poeple could fit in Charleston County. Still couldnt find any other similar examples regardless of geography, especially if you exclude consolidated city-counties.
The thing is most states have a clear #1 alpha city, and that alpha city makes an alpha county. There is no real alpha in SC. Greenville biggest county, Charleston biggest city, Columbia capital #2 in both. The only other state I can think of off the bat where theres an similar argument is Ohio.
Ohio for sure. Maybe Texas as well but I'm not sure how populous their counties are off the top of my head (Dallas vs Houston).
As for your first sentence, true. If I can add that with Charleston being more urban than it's peer cities in SC, this allows it squeeze more people in. Similarly, Greenville (the city) is a bit more squeezed and urbanized than Columbia and is following in Charlestons footsteps in that regard it seems (but without the luxury of annexing). On another note, I heard Charleston is annexing with a bit more ease than Columbia and as mentioned prior, much more than Greenville... So their city limits are a good bit larger.
Reminder to those that don't know, Columbia's ACTUAL city limits where people can actually live is just 51 square miles (Fort Jackson encompasses 81 of Columbia's 132 square miles of city limits).
Greenville's is just 30 square miles
Charleston is 135 square miles.
So Charleston is going great. Density in the city, annexation and growth. All coming together.
If only Columbia could trade Charleston for some population/density and we can give them some parking lots... Lol
Ohio for sure. Maybe Texas as well but I'm not sure how populous their counties are off the top of my head (Dallas vs Houston).
As for your first sentence, true. If I can add that with Charleston being more urban than it's peer cities in SC, this allows it squeeze more people in. Similarly, Greenville (the city) is a bit more squeezed and urbanized than Columbia and is following in Charlestons footsteps in that regard it seems (but without the luxury of annexing). On another note, I heard Charleston is annexing with a bit more ease than Columbia and as mentioned prior, much more than Greenville... So their city limits are a good bit larger.
Reminder to those that don't know, Columbia's ACTUAL city limits where people can actually live is just 51 square miles (Fort Jackson encompasses 81 of Columbia's 132 square miles of city limits).
Greenville's is just 30 square miles
Charleston is 135 square miles.
So Charleston is going great. Density in the city, annexation and growth. All coming together.
If only Columbia could trade Charleston for some population/density and we can give them some parking lots... Lol
This is a great post and one that needs to be included if there is to be a fair discussion on city limit populations. Charlestondata is correct; Charleston has the largest city limit pop and that is worth something; bragging rights, top of the list rights, etc. However, in the real world, paper statistics don't often tell the whole story, as numbers and statistics should be evaluated and assessed to give them true context.
Charleston will be able to enjoy it's place atop the lists, but the lists will only be a piece of the puzzle. Perhaps if each city limit size were the same (135, 51, or 30 sq mi) we could see what the populations were and actually compare apples to apples. Yet despite this, the cities are what they are, and the real world experience isn't changed by square mileage or a list. At the end of the day they are all nearly the same "real-world" size.
Ohio for sure. Maybe Texas as well but I'm not sure how populous their counties are off the top of my head (Dallas vs Houston).
Most people in Texas live in the cities. Texas gets to liberally annex, which is why their cities, and suburbs, are so massive. Houston is almost the same area as York County, and is larger than Dorchester and Pickens, and twice the size Calhoun. It's how San Antonio has become a larger city than Dallas, and 75% of Bexar County lives in San Antonio.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smithgn
As for your first sentence, true. If I can add that with Charleston being more urban than it's peer cities in SC, this allows it squeeze more people in. Similarly, Greenville (the city) is a bit more squeezed and urbanized than Columbia and is following in Charlestons footsteps in that regard it seems (but without the luxury of annexing). On another note, I heard Charleston is annexing with a bit more ease than Columbia and as mentioned prior, much more than Greenville... So their city limits are a good bit larger.
And personally for me, I can't call Charleston more or less urban, as a whole. Dense, yes, for sure. But Charleston, Greenville, and Columbia all sprawl heavy and dont have much of the things that makes a place "urban." Developed, sure, but all the mega-developments going up dont add any "urbanness." Theyre not being built like what'd youd see in Northern Virginia. That's just me though.
I dont think Greenville, Spartanburg, Myrtle Beach, or Anderson for that matter, have annexed much of anything in decades. All the growth is infill. I may be wrong, but I haven't seen it. I heard Columbia and Charleston have been able to annex undeveloped land, in anticipation for growth. Goose Creek too. Greenville can't do this because its surrounded on all sides by development.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smithgn
Reminder to those that don't know, Columbia's ACTUAL city limits where people can actually live is just 51 square miles (Fort Jackson encompasses 81 of Columbia's 132 square miles of city limits).
Greenville's is just 30 square miles
Charleston is 135 square miles.
Charleston is only 114 sq mile of land, but yeah the cities are tiny, including Charleston. Columbia + Fort Jackson is still only the 74th largest city in the US area wise. Myrtle Beach is a paltry 22 sq miles. Compare them with the suburb of Cary, which is 60. That's just not how SC operates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smithgn
So Charleston is going great. Density in the city, annexation and growth. All coming together.
If only Columbia could trade Charleston for some population/density and we can give them some parking lots... Lol
Yeah Columbia is missing a big infill oppurtunity with all the parking lots downtown. Filling those in with even a bunch of 4 stories buildings would make an incredible difference. Everything doesnt have to be a skyscraper. Look at the Water Street development in Tampa. That could be Columbia one day.
As a slight aside, if some are "obsessed" with being number one in whatever population category, I can say for myself that I'm quite obsessed with which counties will be added to the Columbia MSA. My discreet obsession would be to get to the million mark (with the current actual figures) but that would have to include the addition of Orangeburg, Sumter and Newberry.
But to divert away from talking about that topic again, I wonder when they'll measure these commuting figures from county to county. I remember you Jandrew mentioned they might announce the reconfigurations in 2023 but will they look at commuting figures from 2020? Or from 2020-2023?
I searched extensively for anything on how they'll conduct this and I couldn't find a thing. Not even on prior reconfigurations. They just sort of post the results without much underwritten explanation. But I always wonder this and if anything it's what always intrigues me... Columbia especially but other metros as well.
Charleston will be able to enjoy it's place atop the lists, but the lists will only be a piece of the puzzle. Perhaps if each city limit size were the same (135, 51, or 30 sq mi) we could see what the populations were and actually compare apples to apples. Yet despite this, the cities are what they are, and the real world experience isn't changed by square mileage or a list. At the end of the day they are all nearly the same "real-world" size.
That's why I like looking at zip codes too. They help paint a good picture. You would be surprised how many people have a "Greenville" address. It's pushing 300K. Just a smidge more than what's in the 30sq miles. The number of people in NE Columbia with "Columbia" addresses, but not in the city is pushing 100K as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smithgn
As a slight aside, if some are "obsessed" with being number one in whatever population category, I can say for myself that I'm quite obsessed with which counties will be added to the Columbia MSA. My discreet obsession would be to get to the million mark (with the current actual figures) but that would have to include the addition of Orangeburg, Sumter and Newberry.
But to divert away from talking about that topic again, I wonder when they'll measure these commuting figures from county to county. I remember you Jandrew mentioned they might announce the reconfigurations in 2023 but will they look at commuting figures from 2020? Or from 2020-2023?
I dont know exactly what years they'll look at. Probably 2022 or something. It's a shame none of them are growing. Newberry added 900 people yeah, but, that's 900. Part of the decline is older people dying off, but the ones that arent, I'm willing to bet most of those people who are escaping Newberry, Sumter, Saluda, and Orangeburg, are headed to Richland and Lexington, and maybe even Kershaw. So regardless if those counties are added or not, those people will still push the number up.
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.
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.
