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.
Regardless of how you view what defines a city, the suburbs and metro areas make up a substantial portion of the population. An example would be (numbers are NOT accurate and used only to provide an example..take note on that point before you tell me my numbers are wrong) Chicago city has 4 million people yet the metro population is 12 million. The bottom line is our cities and suburbs are still expanding in this joke of an economy. DFW metroplex now covers 12 counties. This is pushing the metro area in excess of 6 million, on target to reach 7 within the next 5-10 years. The amount of land covered by this region is larger than some states. Read on:
Dallas-Fort Worth metro area now includes 12 entire counties | Arlington | Star-Telegram (http://www.star-telegram.com/arlington_news/story/1672817.html - broken link)
Regardless of how you view what defines a city, the suburbs and metro areas make up a substantial portion of the population. An example would be (numbers are NOT accurate and used only to provide an example..take note on that point before you tell me my numbers are wrong) Chicago city has 4 million people yet the metro population is 12 million. The bottom line is our cities and suburbs are still expanding in this joke of an economy. DFW metroplex now covers 12 counties. This is pushing the metro area in excess of 6 million, on target to reach 7 within the next 5-10 years. The amount of land covered by this region is larger than some states. Read on:
Dallas-Fort Worth metro area now includes 12 entire counties | Arlington | Star-Telegram (http://www.star-telegram.com/arlington_news/story/1672817.html - broken link)
Okay...but what large city metro isn't larger than some states? Rhode Island is only 1500 square miles...Delaware is 2500 square miles...Connecticut is 5,000 square miles. Most metros are at least bigger than the first two.
Okay...but what large city metro isn't larger than some states? Rhode Island is only 1500 square miles...Delaware is 2500 square miles...Connecticut is 5,000 square miles. Most metros are at least bigger than the first two.
Very true, just pointing out the obvious. I have extended family who live in Boston, and think anything west of I-495 is closer to Seattle than Beantown.
Actually,
Chicago city has 2.8 Million people yet the metro has 9 million.
I have cut from my original post to make a POINT. I have even underline and bold printed the pieces that some in this threat seem to miss. EXAMPLES AND ESTIMATES TO PAINT A PICTURE.
From my original post:
An example would be (numbers are NOT accurate and used only to provide an example..take note on that point before you tell me my numbers are wrong) Chicago city has 4 million people yet the metro population is 12 million.
I knew they were wrong, and sorry to be crappy about this, but it seems a few scan the thread and then pounce to be right. Well, the data used was never intended to be ACCURATE. It was intended to be used as an example. PLEASE READ THE ENTIRE THOUGHT before you make me state yet again, THIS IS AN EXAMPLE. Call me a party pooper or what the hell ever, but to the ones who insist on being right without reading the entire thought make this thread suck.
Again, the example I made was, and this was pasted from the thought at 3:16 today: "Regardless of how you view what defines a city, the suburbs and metro areas make up a substantial portion of the population. An example would be (numbers are NOT accurate and used only to provide an example..take note on that point before you tell me my numbers are wrong) Chicago city has 4 million people yet the metro population is 12 million. The bottom line is our cities and suburbs are still expanding in this joke of an economy. DFW metroplex now covers 12 counties. This is pushing the metro area in excess of 6 million, on target to reach 7 within the next 5-10 years. The amount of land covered by this region is larger than some states."
Any more questions about accuracy will be ignored as it means either a, you just have to be right 100% of the time regardless of the information being passed, or you can't take the time to READ the entire thought before your ego takes over. I am outta this thread. I tried again, and same thing happened. Have fun being right instead of having an exchange of thoughts and information.
^ Why didn't you just take the 2 minutes to go to wikipedia, and find the correct numbers then? Do you not expect people to correct you when you're wrong? Especially in the City vs. City forum of all places...
^ Why didn't you just take the 2 minutes to go to wikipedia, and find the correct numbers then? Do you not expect people to correct you when you're wrong? Especially in the City vs. City forum of all places...
I would say that no "urban" area exists for 100 miles or more, however the MSAs in the northeast all tend to run together beginning from south of DC all the way up to Boston. The same thing is happening now as growth in the south fills in former farm and forest land along the I-85 corridor between Greenville, SC Richmond, VA. I'm guessing in another 20 years the drive from Atlanta all the way to Boston will be through mostly developed areas, whereas just 20 years ago the southern half of that drive passed quickly through some southern towns and cities and passed largely through rural areas in between.
According to the census bureau, the Norfolk/Va Beach metro borders Richmond's which actually borders DC's. Traffic between the 3 metros is ridiculous. The distsnce between Richmond and DC is the same as between Baltimore and Philly. Both areas have considerable rural parts between them, but not for much longer if growth continues. I can see another megalopolis between Atlanta and Raleigh easily, but there is a large expanse of undeveloped non metro land between Raleigh/Durham and Richmond. Not saying these are a continuous urban expanse, but rather a continuous metropolitan span.
I was going to answer the OP's question with Miami and LA but other's have already commented on those.
Hi everyone, I'm new to the forum, but I have been on here reading with great interest for a while, and this will be my first post.
I have been wondering what metro areas have a continued urbanized built up area of at least 100 miles or more. Off the top of my head, I would say that the only metro areas that could truly qualify would be Miami going north to south, and Los Angeles going east to west. I think the Bay Area may also qualify, but not too sure.
Are there any others I may be missing?
Atlanta comes pretty close. Suburban sprawl starts at around mile market 86 on I-20 and continues to the Alabama border, so thats 86 miles of sprawl at least along I-20. Not sure how it is along the other interstates in the Atlanta metro.
Not quite 100, but 80 miles of I-75 are solidly developed from Cincinnati's southern suburbs to the north side of Dayton
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.
