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.
Indentured Servant,
All metrics are not created equal. Sure people may use whatever helps their city, but the the more valid and exhaustive is to be preferred here. Epistemological subjectivism never works.
The same can be said for most areas of the country. Our fundamentals are still better than Detroit's, and this economy is much, much more diversified.
One other thing to consider - companies continue to move here. Can't say the same for SE Michigan.
The gap between Detroit and Atlanta's economy is shrinking, when you look at home sales, job creation, unemployment rate and such. in 2006 Detroit was in a depression and Atlanta was still booming. Today there is not much difference in the economic performance of the areas. I would still say that a person has a better chance of getting a job in ATL area than Detroit....but not by the same margin as in the past. (that said....ATL and The D are far behind Minneapolis economy...where I currently live).
One has to also realize that many companies moves South because of Unions up north and the high cost of doing business up north. However, the Unions up north really have been decimated and the cost of doing business has really reduced, as well as the cost of living as demand for the area declined. The south became popular, in large part, for the same reason that Mexico and China became popular.....which is due to the fact that businesses wanted to take advantage of lower wages, lower taxes and lower regulation to increase their profit margins. People moving south also enjoyed lower cost housing and such as well, relative to the North.
Those advantages do not exist like the used to....at least not in the same degree. SOme states up north are passing right-to-work legistlation like what exist in the South. Many areas of the midwest now has some of the most affordable housing in the country. The cost of doing business in many places have been reduced. In short, the economic climate in the north has changed to the degree that the "Push" factor that drove businesses away is not as strong as it used to be.
What you have to keep in mind is the laws of supply and demand. The south became attractive because the north had high demand as people from the south were moving north seeking a better life and most of the big companies were up north competing for land in high rent CBD's. The lack of demand in the south made everything cheaper and companies and people started moving South. However, as companies and people started moving south the drop in demand has lowered the cost of doing business in the North (Midwest) and places in the South are not starting to have big city problems of traffic congestion and rising cost. Things run in cycles and the North had a bood cycle and the South had a boom cycled but booms are always followed by bust.
Yes,I understand this and apparently by the measurements the areas around Detroit are more independent and are not driven by the presence of Detroit in the way that the areas around Atlanta are. That is what an MSA is it shows the number of people that are immediately affected by a city and how far that area is nothing more. A majority of the time those individual cities are so intertwined with that city to a level that it identifies itself as a part of that city. I understood your original point, and that there is a larger urban cluster around Detroit, but the MSA's measure that more people and a larger area are affected by Atlanta. Here let me give an example: San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland are all part of one region, but the people in Oakland don't say their from San Francisco due to the lack of reliance on the city of San Francisco. Once again I know and understand that the radius' around Detroit contain more people. All an MSA shows is an immediately affected area and population.
That point is not lost. The last time I was in the Bay Area for a conference I took the Bart from SF to Oakland. I also drove to San Jose. I love that area (Bay area). My point is that to me, it was all one accesssible area. To me its just the "Bay Area". MSA is a measure of commuting influence. What city has the most commuter gravity....if you will. I understand that and am not trying to change that. All I am saying is that there are other metric to measure population than by commuters.
That point is not lost. The last time I was in the Bay Area for a conference I took the Bart from SF to Oakland. I also drove to San Jose. I love that area (Bay area). My point is that to me, it was all one accesssible area. To me its just the "Bay Area". MSA is a measure of commuting influence. What city has the most commuter gravity....if you will. I understand that and am not trying to change that. All I am saying is that there are other metric to measure population than by commuters.
Yes there are but if they are not commuting to the principal city then they are not affected by the area enough to be considered part of that cities area of influence therefore those cities around Detroit not included on the MSA should not be included as part of the population of Detroit. I have no problem saying that the region Detroit is in has more people.
Yes there are but if they are not commuting to the principal city then they are not affected by the area enough to be considered part of that cities area of influence therefore those cities around Detroit not included on the MSA should not be included as part of the population of Detroit. I have no problem saying that the region Detroit is in has more people.
Yes...that what my only point. based upon other metrics, that ignore commuters, the region has more people. The only thing I am thinking about is access and access is a function of reasonable distance. Again, whatever 5 million plus people affords an inhabitant of an area, one has that in both Detroit and the ATL.
I think this is a good post. Population comparisons have to be taken with a grain of salt....like one would take the unemployment rate. The unemployment rate may be lower because somee people are not counted because they have become so discouraged they have stopped looking and fall out of the "official count". Metropolitan areas are kind of the same. Unless people in outlaying counties or areas commute to the core county or city at a certain percentage, they are not included as part of the metro count. In other instances a close by metro may choose to be independent and seperate and hence are not added in.
For example, the Boston area, if it had the same geographic footprint of Atlanta or Houstan or Dallas.......would have at least a million more people than these areas. There was a topic in the City-vs-City forum that ranked population by 100 mile radius and one that ranked them by 50 mile radius.
For example:
25 mile radius from the center. In millions
1 - NYC 13.6
2 - LA 9.5
3 - Chicago 5.9
4 - Philadelphia 4.5
5 - DC 4.1
6 - Houston 3.7
7 - Detroit 3.6
8 - DFW 3.6
9 - Boston 3.4
10 - Miami 3.3 11 - Atlanta 3.1
12 - SF 2.5
And again at 50 miles: In Millions
1 - NYC 18.2
2 - LA 13.9
3 - Chicago 8.9
4 - Philadelphia 7.4
5 - DC 7.0
6 - Boston 6.5
7 - SF 6.2
8 - DFW 5.1
9 - Detroit 4.9
10 - Houston 4.6
11 - Miami 4.3 12 - Atlanta 4.3
And 100 miles:
New York, NY: 28.2 Million
Los Angeles, CA: 17.7 Million
Chicago, IL: 12.74 Million
Washington D.C.: 11.39 Million
San Francisco, CA: 10.26 Million
Boston, MA: 10 Million
Detroit, MI: 9.5 Million
Atlanta, GA: 6.7 Million
Orlando, FL: 6.63 Million
Dallas, TX: 6.38 Million
Tampa, FL: 6.07 Million
Houston, TX: 5.6 Million
Miami, FL: 5.58 Million
Louisville, KY: 4.99 Million
Lexington, KY: 4.86 Million
Huntsville, AL: 4.28 Million
Minneapolis, MN: 4.25 Million
Seattle, WA: 4.24 Million
Phoenix, AZ: 3.68 Million
Birmingham, AL: 3.3 Million
Note that Metropolitan Atlanta is listed at being over 5 million people, while Metro Detroit is listed as just above 4 million. However, at a 50 mile radius Detroit has more people than Altanta which means Metro Altanta's foot print is born from more than a 50 mile radius while Detroits metro foot print, due to counting methodologies, is obviously less than a 50 mile radius given that Metro Atlanta is listed as having a million more people than Metro Detroit. In truth, Atlanta, using a 25, 50, or 100 mile radius is less populated than Detroit but Altanta is ranked as having more people by MSA standards....due to commuting patterns and other things. There is almost 3 million more people in the Detroit area, at a 100 mile radius, than in the same size area centered at Atlanta, and that does not even include the City of Windsor, Ontario Canada, that is the city on the other side of the Detroit river. Adding the Canada side of the Detroit area increases the areas population by about 500,000.
I think Altanta is a fast riser....or should I say it used to be a fast riser, but the truth is that Atlanta is really not a top 10 population center.....yet. Note that some cities, like Philadelphia, are not listed in the 100 mile radius count because they get merged together with a larger areas 100 mile count. In othe words, philadelphia and NY City are within 100 miles of each other, as is true for Milwaukee and Chicago.
And yet you list Orlando and Tampa separately. Why?
Detroit is a donut. Abandoned city center surrounded by suburbs. Not sure how this became ATL vs Detroit. That said ATL is definitely more suburban in nature. For example the Majestic is a favorite late night spot which is near the Ritcheous Room which is in a strip mall. ATL could for sure use more density but Detroit is a poor example to compare against.
Stop, guys. Just stop. Between this forum and Houston, I don't know which city has the bigger inferiority complex. I am an Atlanta native and there are many wordly aspects of our city. We have hosted the Olympics, have a large number of Fortune 500 companies, have been one of the fastest growing metropolitan areas in the US, have residents from all over the world, have the tallest skyscraper outside of New York and Chicago, have a subway, and have a lot of the big name restaurants and stores, etc. There are certain things about cities that people who visit them actually remember that contributes to a city's national status. The number of Fortune 500 companies, the tallest builiding outside of NY and Chi, and whether or not a city has a Carolina Herrera boutique store are not what people visiting Atlanta, or anywhere else, take away when leaving a city.
There are more criteria that smaller cities have that makes it hard to definitively say that Atlanta has a higher national status. Let's just compare our situation to Denver's just for example.
Denver is known nationally for its transit development. Denver already had its version of TIA that was literally all transit. It passed and already is under construction. Denver has almost as many miles of urban rail as Atlanta does, yet MARTA rail has been around 15 years longer than Denver's light rail system. When its West Rail line opens next year, Denver's rail system will be larger than Atlanta's. Denver is nowhere near done with their rail expansion, while MARTA rail expansion of any variety is very much up in the air here.
When you take a look at sports, Denver has a professional basketball, football, baseball, and ice hockey team all of which are very well supported by residents, many of whom are transplants. Atlanta has basketball, football, and baseball. With the exception of our Braves, our sports teams are not supported to near the extent of Denver's teams. I would argue that Denver's team have a lot more national exposure than Atlanta's. I have had several out of towners ask me if Atlanta had an ice hockey team even when the Thrashers were around. I've had to remind people of our basketball team's name as well.
When it comes to downtown development, I would also argue that Denver's is in a lot of higher standing than Atlanta's. While we have the aquarium, CNN Center, World of Coke, and Centennial Olympic Park, we're not known for much else. People know Denver nationally by its pedestrian mall, 16th Street. It is a lively downtown that isn't overrun by a bunch of loiterers who are up to no good. It is full of shopping opportunities, big name restaurants, and even a free shuttle that regularly runs up and down that street. The LoDo area has a number of residential and office lofts, local bars, and shops.
In terms of walkability, one could also argue that Denver is a lot more pedestrian friendly than Atlanta. The 16th Street Mall again is an example, as it Capitol Hill, the areas around Washington and Cheesman parks, etc. Atlanta has its walkable areas, but they tend to be scattered around and not conjoined like Denver's. You can literally walk in any direction from downtown Denver and still be in pedestrian friendly areas for miles. In Atlanta, that's just not the case. That's the type of experience that people remember.
Whether a city has more designer stores, 14 lane freeways, a Maserati dealership, or has a Real Housewives series does not somehow propel us into the ranks of LA, NY, or Chi. There needs to be a certain organic feeling to a city for people to remember it and for it to have subsequent status. As far as I'm concerned, Atlanta is just not there.
And yet you list Orlando and Tampa separately. Why?
I did not compile the list.....I just reprinted it. Your point it well taken, however. I think that both areas contain the other because they are less than 100 miles apart. However, centered at tampa, which is on the coast, would be half the diamter of the 100 mile radius which would be an area the same as a 50 mile radius. One other thing that I noticed is that the list does not include Grand Rapids Michigan, which actually has more people in a 100 mile radius than Minneapolis.....and no the Grand Rapids Area does not include the Detroit area in its total.
For example, the Boston area, if it had the same geographic footprint of Atlanta or Houstan or Dallas.......would have at least a million more people than these areas. There was a topic in the City-vs-City forum that ranked population by 100 mile radius and one that ranked them by 50 mile radius.
For example:
25 mile radius from the center. In millions
....
Very interesting post. Thank you!
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.
