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.
And this area is recognized by who? Certainly not anyone outside of Philadelphia. It must be hard to live in a place that can't stand on its' own merits.
By 25 Million inhabitants of the area that can enjoy their Metropolis.
lol, we don't care where in the urban area the expansion occurs, just as long as it occurs. and in terms of numbers the city is getting more people than burbs
why would you take a jab at the suburbs getting more dense anyway??
How can authentic and sustainable denstiy be created without significant public transportation?
And this area is recognized by who? Certainly not anyone outside of Philadelphia. It must be hard to live in a place that can't stand on its' own merits.
Actually despite being a hemmed in metro - Philly has a significant identity
Many organizations cite this including the Census though they drew a line through the middle of the UA to speerate the two Metros for categorical purposes
But I much prefer Philly to the South Side of Chicago - reminds of North Philly/Camden/Gary and that is not a good thing
BTW - I saw in another thread you have never been to Philly - thanks for the great uneducated perspective - carry on
Last edited by kidphilly; 12-02-2010 at 10:53 AM..
I was really just having a little fun. I don't care about numbers so much.
I really didn't put a lot of thought behind my post, but I sub-consciously assumed that the gain would be new suburbs/development or a gain in urban density. Hey, if the burbs are densifying (if that's a word), then great. If Houston becomes much more urban over the next 20 years, I will be happy to see more higher density urban areas in the US (more for me to chose from, and warmer climate cities).
Well the boundaries have stayed the same while the population has increased so that accounts for the over one million increase in UA size.
I have not been to all the burbs but the changes in Pearland for example look like night and day. 10 years ago it looked like you could throw plains just over the houston border and not hit anything in that city, now you will have problems trowing pebbles and not hitting anything. That area has filled in nicely
I read an article last night which said that Houston's infill has surpassed that of smart growth model Portland. You should really take a spin around the inner loop. It is nothing like San Francisco, no one would claim that it is, but compared to 10 years ago, the changes are stunning
Well UA's can be tricky because the numbers for the core UA can swing upwards very very quickly.
For instance in Chicago in 2000 there was the main UA of 8,300,000 people. There were multiple UA's though that had small gas of between 1-2 miles between themselves and the main UA of Chicago. Because of this, they weren't included in the Chicago UA - although if you were were wandering around in them, it was obvious you were in the Chicago metro area.
There were 9 UA's lying directly outside the Chicago UA that were expected to be absorbed into the Chicago UA come 2010. If that happened, Chicago's UA would immediately bump up by the 457,800 people who were living in those areas right outside of Chicago back in 2000. That's regardless of the hundreds of thousands of people who actually moved into or were born from 2000 to 2010. So while the metro might grow by 700,000 people, Chicago's UA could easily increase by over 1,000,000 just because it's including more area than it had before.
Does that make sense? God I'm bored at work today...
Well UA's can be tricky because the numbers for the core UA can swing upwards very very quickly.
For instance in Chicago in 2000 there was the main UA of 8,300,000 people. There were multiple UA's though that had small gas of between 1-2 miles between themselves and the main UA of Chicago. Because of this, they weren't included in the Chicago UA - although if you were were wandering around in them, it was obvious you were in the Chicago metro area.
There were 9 UA's lying directly outside the Chicago UA that were expected to be absorbed into the Chicago UA come 2010. If that happened, Chicago's UA would immediately bump up by the 457,800 people who were living in those areas right outside of Chicago back in 2000. That's regardless of the hundreds of thousands of people who actually moved into or were born from 2000 to 2010. So while the metro might grow by 700,000 people, Chicago's UA could easily increase by over 1,000,000 just because it's including more area than it had before.
Does that make sense? God I'm bored at work today...
it makes perfect sense, that is what I was trying to explain to Paul the other night
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.
