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've noticed that--nobody really acknowledges Jacksonville as the largest FL city, and I would bet that even most educators in this country wouldn't know it either.
Miami is like the 4th largest isn't it after Jacksonville and I am guessing Tampa and Orlando? I've never been to Miami and Jacksonville, but I have been to Tampa and Orlando and they were considerably big.
Miami is the second-largest city in Florida:
1) Jacksonville 805,605
2) Miami 424,662
3) Tampa 336,823
4) St. Petersburg 246,407
5) Orlando 227,907
6) Hialeah 212,217
7) Fort Lauderdale 183,606
8) Tallahassee 171,922
9) Cape Coral 156,891
10) Port Saint Lucie 151,391
^^Those are population estimates, BTW. It sort of surprises me that Cape Coral and Port St. Lucie were actually in the top 10.
2) Tampa Bay Area 2,697,731 (this is just Tampa/St. Pete/Clearwater, the Census doesn't include Sarasota/Bradenton with them)
3)Orlando-Deltona-Daytona Beach, FL 2,633,282
4) Greater Jacksonville 1,277,997
5) Sarasota-Bradenton-Punta Gorda, FL 837,271
6) Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL MSA 571,34
7) Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA 561,606
So the state's 2nd and 7th-largest cities are a part of the state's largest metro area, the state's largest city is the hub of the 4th-largest metro area in the state. The 5th-largest city is the hub of the 3rd-largest metro area in the state, etc.
It's debatable if Sarasota-Bradenton should be included with Tampa Bay, as they are far enough from the Tampa Bay area to have an identity all their own. Manatee County, where Bradenton is located is within commuting distance from parts of the Bay area though.
Lakeland/Polk County is debatable to be included with the Tampa Bay area, as it's midway between Tampa and Orlando, and there is some commuting between the two metro areas. The northeast part of Polk County (Davenport/Four Corners) seems to lean towards Orlando, as it's very close to the Walt Disney World resort.
So when you hear people claiming the Tampa Bay area has 4 million people, it's a little bit more complicated than that.
grindin, in his post, gives the perfect example of city populations vs. metro populations. i understand the differences in these numbers; however, imo, the way cities are identified are somewhat misleading when one has a conversation about an area. for instance, some may speak generally of tampa, w/out identifying the metro area of clearwater and st. petersburg. many may leave the conversation w/ the idea that tampa is a city of 2 million + residents. equally, others could have a similar conversation and the listener might leave w/ the understanding that st. petersburg or clearwater, perhaps, are areas of 2 million +.
in my own area, i have gotten confused w/ the population statistics for memphis proper, because many times the area is not identified as metropolitan memphis, but rather, memphis. often, the entire west memphis suburb and the southern metropolitan area of mississippi are left out of official numbers, news reports, or general identification of the meteropolitan area. the metropolitan area was last estimated to be about 1.3 million residents in 2006. however, collierville, a suburb of memphis petitioned the census bureau for a current certification in 2008 and found the community to be approximately 10,000 residents under the official bureau census estimate in 2008.
the american community survey lists metropolitan memphis, as of 2008, w/ a population of 939,000. however, the metropolitan number would have, by government designation, have to include the four mississippi counties and the one arkansas county designated by the government during the last census. when residents in memphis discuss issues in memphis proper, many times is is not known wheather the city of arlington and the city of lakeland are now treated as the suburban cities of barlett, germantown, and collierville, located in tn.
the one thing that i do know, memphis proper has a designated number of residents estimated to be around 700,000. the city limits are marked, and one knows the boundaries of the suburbs. my question would be why memphis is not designated as memphis-atoka-munford-jonesboro. my reasoning rests in the designation of nashville-davidson (which is a metropolitan form of government)-franklin-murfreesboro. in its csa, it adds the city of columbia, and, possibily the city's county.
it seems that more and more areas that were cities w/ their independent identities. w/out looking, there are just too many for me to remember by name. many of them are located in north carolina, denver-aurora-colorado springs, utah, and on and on. this hasn't been the case in the north and northeast, and we all know they have for years strung cities together and formed the first megaloposis/megapolitan and other names that i can't remember off hand.
regardless, of wheather this changes or not, wheather others agree w/ my thinking, my beliefs, my real concern is ultimately the shifts of districts and power, voting, and the like, due to some of these points that i consider issues.
I think 99% of people would disagree with you on this statement
your point is well taken, and i certainly agree w/ you, but i felt i had just a bit of standing for a fairly decent argument i am glad that the msa designations exist; however, i don't think the same argument can be made for the csa.
bizjournals: Projected population of 250 U.S. metros (http://www.bizjournals.com/specials/pages/257.html - broken link)
bizjournals: How much U.S. metros will grow -- bizjournals (http://www.bizjournals.com/edit_special/80.html - broken link)
Projecting population growth is as much an art as a science — and often an inexact art at that. But it still offers an interesting, useful and provocative view of the future.
That’s why bizjournals is issuing its own population projections for the nation’s 250 largest metropolitan areas, looking as far ahead as 2025.
Bizjournals analyzed recent county-by-county growth patterns within each state, and then used that information to predict metropolitan growth at five-year intervals between 2005 and 2025.
bizjournals: Projected population of 250 U.S. metros (http://www.bizjournals.com/specials/pages/257.html - broken link)
bizjournals: How much U.S. metros will grow -- bizjournals (http://www.bizjournals.com/edit_special/80.html - broken link)
Projecting population growth is as much an art as a science — and often an inexact art at that. But it still offers an interesting, useful and provocative view of the future.
That’s why bizjournals is issuing its own population projections for the nation’s 250 largest metropolitan areas, looking as far ahead as 2025.
Bizjournals analyzed recent county-by-county growth patterns within each state, and then used that information to predict metropolitan growth at five-year intervals between 2005 and 2025.
and their agenda is to try and cast trends, bolster certain real or projected economies, regions, cities, and states. quite frankly, new york city is the only city, regardless of size, that boasts and gdp of 1 trillion dollars.
i have nothing against austin, charlotte, raliegh, durham, atlanta, fort worth, dallas, dc, san fran, and los angeles, but there are other real growth areas, regions, and cities that have surprisingly important work going. nevertheless, buzz can be very helpful, but a bit cut throat. some cities need to decide if they are going to be a city or a group of small towns. afterall, funding depends on bolstering numbers, and/or low-balling them.
Well I just got my 2010 Census form in the mail. I'm sure a lot of other people will get theirs soon too. It won't be too long until we find out which cities gained which states lost.
I'm looking forward to seeing the results. I don't expect much change for the small city where I live. The state of Oregon has gained a bunch of people since the last census. We'll find out how many soon.
and their agenda is to try and cast trends, bolster certain real or projected economies, regions, cities, and states. quite frankly, new york city is the only city, regardless of size, that boasts and gdp of 1 trillion dollars.
i have nothing against austin, charlotte, raliegh, durham, atlanta, fort worth, dallas, dc, san fran, and los angeles, but there are other real growth areas, regions, and cities that have surprisingly important work going. nevertheless, buzz can be very helpful, but a bit cut throat. some cities need to decide if they are going to be a city or a group of small towns. afterall, funding depends on bolstering numbers, and/or low-balling them.
True but there is really a class one of cities in the US
Well I just got my 2010 Census form in the mail. I'm sure a lot of other people will get theirs soon too. It won't be too long until we find out which cities gained which states lost.
I'm looking forward to seeing the results. I don't expect much change for the small city where I live. The state of Oregon has gained a bunch of people since the last census. We'll find out how many soon.
I actually disagree. In 2000, OR just started the dot-com bust, and a lot of companies have been shutting down and cutting back since then ( NEC, Fujitsu, Micron, Intel, Freightliner, etc ). A lot of jobs in Oregon were tied to manufacturing and that is what killed our state-wide economy since 2000. I think there may be a few areas of OR that gained population since 2000, but the vast majority has most likely lost population.
MI and NV and most likely CA will be hardest hit. MI has been the top state for unemployment like the last 18 of 19 months ( Oregon topped it only in it was like Mar 2008 ) and while NV had all those CA transplants moving there until a few yrs ago, then they got caught the hardest in the foreclosure mess ( NV is #1 in that ) and that will surely hurt their #'s too.
Surprisingly, most of CA I seen is moving to AZ or ID. Idaho will surely see a boom in population #'s if that is accurate, and UT and TX might see some gains too because their economies haven't tanked like most of the rest of the country has. The same could also be said for both of the Dakota states and NE, IA too ( because of lower unemployment #'s the last few yrs )
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.
It won't be too long until we find out which cities gained which states lost. 
I don't expect much change for the small city where I live. The state of Oregon has gained a bunch of people since the last census. We'll find out how many soon.
