Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 02-16-2012, 03:42 AM
 
Location: Los Altos Hills, CA
36,643 posts, read 67,325,378 times
Reputation: 21179

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever View Post
Yeah, it's crazy.

I've been to all large metropolitan areas in the U.S. In terms of geographic size and the feeling of large:

1) New York
2) Los Angeles
3) Chicago
4: Tied: Atlanta/Dallas/Houston- all fairly similar
7: Philadelphia
8: San Francisco Bay
9: Washington D.C. (without Baltimore)
10: Detroit
11. Miami
12. Phoenix
13. Seattle
14. Cleveland/Akron/Canton (all pretty much combined these days)
15. Boston
16. Minneapolis-St. Paul
In my experience I've never felt that Atlanta, Houston and Dallas were larger than the Bay Area as far as physical expanse mainly because the Bay Area's sustained density levels are way more far reaching than the other three.

 
Old 02-16-2012, 03:45 AM
 
Location: where u wish u lived
896 posts, read 1,165,522 times
Reputation: 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
In my experience I've never felt that Atlanta, Houston and Dallas were larger than the Bay Area as far as physical expanse mainly because the Bay Area's sustained density levels are way more far reaching than the other three.

This chart made from to-scale maps from the New York Times' 2010 Census portal pretty much confirms that:
I agree if he traded #8 and #4 it would actually be not a bad list imo
 
Old 02-16-2012, 03:47 AM
 
Location: where u wish u lived
896 posts, read 1,165,522 times
Reputation: 254
^^^Actually I take that back I didn't see how low he put Boston
 
Old 02-16-2012, 04:11 AM
 
2,744 posts, read 6,096,003 times
Reputation: 977
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago76 View Post
I compiled something similar on another thread, except I looked at metro GDP per working age population (18 to 64). Certain MSAs are really closely linked from an economic perspective, so I combined them: Riverside-LA, Raleigh-Durham, and the Bay Area. I kept Baltimore and DC separate because they are fundamentally very different places economically. Riverside would rate at the bottom, but the MSA is more or less a service/light manufacturing/distribution base for the Greater LA region. Highest GDP per working age capita of the 50 largest metros:

Bay Area 121,900
Washington DC 115,200
Hartford 114,500
New York City 105,700
Boston 105,500
Houston 101,900
Seattle 101,300
Charlotte 101,000
Salt Lake City 95,400
Denver 95,300
Indianapolis 95,100
New Orleans 94,900
Minneapolis 94,600
Dallas 92,700
Philadelphia 91,700
Raleigh-Durham 89,100
Chicago 88,700
Milwaukee 86,600
Portland 86,200
Honolulu 84,900
San Diego 84,900
Kansas City 83,400
Baltimore 83,000
Cleveland 82,500
Atlanta 80,100
Richmond 79,200
Columbus 78,600
Memphis 78,600
Pittsburgh 78,500
Nashville 78,400
Los Angeles 78,000
Orlando 75,900
Birmingham 75,600
Austin 75,300
Cincinnati 75,100
VA Beach 74,300
Miami 74,200
Phoenix 74,100
Detroit 73,600
Oklahoma City 73,600
St. Louis 73,400
Las Vegas 72,300
Louisville 72,200
Jacksonville 70,000
Rochester, NY 68,500
Sacramento 68,500
Tampa 66,400
Providence 64,700
Buffalo 63,500
San Antonio 61,600

The ones at the bottom of the list that really surprise me are San Antonio and Providence. The big surprises toward the top for me are Salt Lake City and Indianapolis. Charlotte felt right due to all the banking and New Orleans makes sense considering all of the reconstruction acitivity and oil/gas industry ties. Austin seems a bit low too. There's probably a big economic divide between tech/new economy Austin and the sizable recent immigrant pool.

Surprising for San Antonio based on its strong diversified economy. The city has many oil and gas corporations HQ here 3 of them are 500's one of them if i'm not mistaken a top F-500.Plus Ford shale is having a major impact as well. Then you have Finance and Insurance which is huge with over a 21 Billion impact on the area and that's based on 2004 statistics.

The Tech industry is getting bigger here with a respectable 10 billion dollar generator to the local economy. SA is also a large manufacturing center and has 50+ Aerospace companies.

And cant forget the other giants, Bio-medical-healthcare, and Dept of Defense which both generate roughly 25 billion each to the city.

And lastly that little thing called convention and tourism another 12 billion economic generator.

Interesting list I wonder how it is compiled?
 
Old 02-16-2012, 04:39 AM
 
2,399 posts, read 4,207,418 times
Reputation: 1301
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
In my experience I've never felt that Atlanta, Houston and Dallas were larger than the Bay Area as far as physical expanse mainly because the Bay Area's sustained density levels are way more far reaching than the other three.
When you can cross the urbanized area in five to ten miles from either the Pacific Ocean or the natural area to the Bay on the west Bay side, come on. Seriously. Even if you consider the north-south span, you're talking maybe 70 miles, which is large, and comparable to Atlanta, but without the large east-west span, it's tiny. Water doesn't count. I'm also aware of the topographic barriers, but even then, the development is too broken to sustain a wide geographic span.
 
Old 02-16-2012, 04:48 AM
 
2,399 posts, read 4,207,418 times
Reputation: 1301
Quote:
Originally Posted by annie_himself View Post
Baton Rouge doesn't but it does have a very smaller version. Eight parishes surround metro Baton Rouge so it has parish seats with historic or established cities (Donaldsonville, Gonzales, Denham Springs, Zachary, New Roads, and Plaquemine) yet on a much much smaller scale. In the end, not all different from Atlanta minus the tiny population difference and infrastructure that comes with increased population.
There is no comparison between Baton Rouge & Atlanta. Baton Rouge has a small skyline. It has a smaller CBD. West of Baton Rouge, the built-up area to downtown is only about 5 miles. Its largest length, its southeast side, along I-10 toward the Louisiana Mall, is only around 12 miles from downtown. You're trying to compare a metro's urbanized area that is over 70 miles across with one that might be 25 miles across?

Quote:
But back to the point, Atlanta only feels big inside 285, but when I say Atlanta in this respect I mean the urbanized metro. Houston doesn't feel huge when you're in Katy or Humble but it does when you can see all the skylines in and around 610. The same concept applies to Atlanta and most sunbelt cities.
There are parts of Atlanta that feel larger outside of 285. In fact, I'd say the inner ring suburbs feel larger than the area inside I-285, barring downtown, midtown, Buckhead commercial area and unincorporated Dekalb County. This tells me that you really haven't spent a lot of time here.

By the way, Katy has the appearance of being in a large metropolitan area, granted that its close to the urbanized edge. I was in the area in 2002, and it was much, much smaller then. When I returned to the area in 2010, the place didn't look even remotely similar. Roads had been widened, development had exploded all over the place, traffic was much worse, and the DOT had placed large light towers on I-10 nearby. So I don't really see what you're getting at.
 
Old 02-16-2012, 04:51 AM
 
2,399 posts, read 4,207,418 times
Reputation: 1301
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayp1188 View Post
To be fair though, most people who have been to all of these metropolitan areas would likely say "Yeah, it's crazy" to you're ranking as well.
Have you been to all of them? I have.

Do you study the physical expanses of a city? I do.

Are you aware of the physical spans of these metros? I am.

To me, you're probably ignorant, so you likely base your opinion on outdated stereotypes.
 
Old 02-16-2012, 04:58 AM
 
2,399 posts, read 4,207,418 times
Reputation: 1301
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmac9wr View Post
Boston smaller than Seattle and Cleveland? Atlanta larger than Philly, SF Bay and Washington DC?!

Crack smoke.
It's called the physical imprint on the land. Anyone who actually studied the subject would be able to see what I'm referring to. Boston is not spacially large. I'm not saying that it doesn't have a larger population than Cleveland. Boston's realm is not that large. Sure, it's the largest city in New England, but other nearby cities, such as Providence, Nashua, Manchester, and Worcester are independent of Boston. They're their own primary cities, and they have their own suburbs. Boston can't claim them as its own. That's what many of you would like to do. Furthermore, development has grown between them, but it is patchy development, with still lots of undeveloped land. That said, given the nature of the other cities being primary cities in their own regard, it's not like you claim it all. If Boston were the only primary city in its nearby vicinity, and if all the development were the result of Boston and/or the offshoot of Boston, you'd have a point, but that's not the case.

The San Francisco Bay and Washington DC (minus Baltimore) is considerably smaller than Atlanta, spacially speaking. Anyone who studies this knows this. I'll try to post some maps relaying what I'm talking about later today.

Philadelphia's urbanized imprint is slightly smaller than Atlanta's. That's all I'm saying. It's population for the metro area is slightly larger than Atlanta's. There's data to back up everything I'm saying.

I think a lot of you are very young and have so little experience or knowledge pertaining to these subjects, that you base your views on outdated stereotypes or misappropriated figures such as density, which doesn't negate whether an area is urbanized if it has a lower density, but is developed.
 
Old 02-16-2012, 05:49 AM
 
4,833 posts, read 6,075,374 times
Reputation: 4635
Quote:
Originally Posted by annie_himself View Post
Baton Rouge doesn't but it does have a very smaller version. Eight parishes surround metro Baton Rouge so it has parish seats with historic or established cities (Donaldsonville, Gonzales, Denham Springs, Zachary, New Roads, and Plaquemine) yet on a much much smaller scale. In the end, not all different from Atlanta minus the tiny population difference and infrastructure that comes with increased population.

But back to the point, Atlanta only feels big inside 285, but when I say Atlanta in this respect I mean the urbanized metro. Houston doesn't feel huge when you're in Katy or Humble but it does when you can see all the skylines in and around 610. The same concept applies to Atlanta and most sunbelt cities.
Metro Atlanta have 28 counties that 28 county seats with historic Downtowns some are big as the ones I posted some are smaller. Remember GA counties are small There are also non county seats Stone Mountain, East Point, Alpharetta Woodstock and etc that have historic downtown similar or lager then the ones you listed for Baton Rouge posted.

So in addition to have larger suburban Downtowns Atlanta has way more of them. Well i disagree a lot with stars&stripes but he or she is correct that some places outside Atlanta's 285 are urban then inside. I mean especially with cobb and then Gwinnett County 436.72 sq mi has a similar population to Greater Baton Rouge 4,196 sq. mi. Obviously the majority of these suburban DT are OTP. "outside of 285"


On single family housing I can agree with you on Baton Rouge to other sunbelt cities but in retail and commercial areas that's a different story. I know posters on this site don't like Indoor malls and strip malls but reality is they are not equal. Some strips are way more develop then others. LA has this vibe that you feel highly develop strip malls will never end, nothing is close to that in Philly and Boston areas. Suburban major roads in Houston and Atlanta that go through and connect suburb to suburb are generally more develop then what's in Baton rouge. How ever if your talking about exurbs I completely agree with you.

Houston has 2 large loops, katy is outside both of them. That's very far from Houston core. In fact katy TX is like Harris county border. Harris county is not that much smaller than Atlanta's 5 core counties. West of katy is basically rural, I think your looking for the term exurbs rather than just any suburb.
 
Old 02-16-2012, 06:20 AM
 
Location: Los Altos Hills, CA
36,643 posts, read 67,325,378 times
Reputation: 21179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever View Post
When you can cross the urbanized area in five to ten miles from either the Pacific Ocean or the natural area to the Bay on the west Bay side, come on. Seriously. Even if you consider the north-south span, you're talking maybe 70 miles, which is large, and comparable to Atlanta, but without the large east-west span, it's tiny. Water doesn't count. I'm also aware of the topographic barriers, but even then, the development is too broken to sustain a wide geographic span.
Sorry, but the topographical nature of the Bay Area results in things being spread out and that affects how 'big' the place feels. If you look at the principal contiguous clusters of 5,000+persons per square mile, the Bay Area appears far larger than the other 3, and that assertion is confirmed by this chart comprised of to-scale maps from the NY Times 2010 Census portal:
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.



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:56 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top