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 may have physically met the requirements, but the UA's get redefined by the Census in 2013, so we will know by then if they have combined.
same think here. all sources say Houston has passed Philly more than a year ago. But that won't be reflected in official lists until next year when the census rearrange lists.
last time they did it Boston went from having 6M people in its metro to 4 M so I should not be counting chickens yet. The Census may remove or add counties to metros so next year Philly may end up with 7M people while Houston ends up with 5M. SF may gain, or it may further lose people.
Very interesting, I will be excited to see the outcome. Idc what happens as long as Phoenix doesn't pass Philly in city population haha.
It says "potential" so IDK if that means it has been done already. Anyway that is the start of the formation of a megalopolis right there. If I'm not mistaken 29 mill is the largest in the world?
Second to Greater Tokyo at 36 million and a hair larger than Greater Seoul. Tokyo has seen better days, as Japan's population begins to decline many other world metropolises are ready to overtake Tokyo. I think in another 20 years we will see this area and Greater Seoul surpass Greater Tokyo which has just begun is spiral downward along with the entity of Japan.
Second to Greater Tokyo at 36 million and a hair larger than Greater Seoul. Tokyo has seen better days, as Japan's population begins to decline many other world metropolises are ready to overtake Tokyo.
Well China's population is rising quickly. I wonder if they are taking any people from Japan. Especially Hong Kong which is usually not seen as a part of China. It's very strange.
This has gone way to long, weather its Houston, Philly, San Francisco, DC, Boston no one knows all I know is Houston is the 4th largest city even if it does have larger city limits than the rest so we can agree to disagree. All major cities in America play an important role to our economy some more than others but doesnt change the fact.
You have barely more people because your boundaries are much larger. That's not a small detail. If we took your area in square miles and applied it to Philadelphia and the surrounding area, we would easily leapfrog you. In 1950, we had almost as many people in 135 square miles as you do currently at your continued peak in 500+ square miles. Back then, in 500+ square miles we would've had 3-4 million easily. From Philadelphia all the way to Chester, Camden, and in parts to Wilmington and Reading and elsewhere, we had miles and miles of densely populated, vibrant, very important and powerful cities and other municipalities. You don't now nor will you ever have that, so no it's not a small thing that you need 500 square miles to barely edge out the 135 square mile city proper at our previous peak.
San Francisco and Boston are definitely in the conversation regardless. They've never not been important really.
noticed how much of the area that is now Boston's CSA was removed from its MSA??? it went from being a 6M metro to being a 4.3M metro.
at the same time Miami went from 24th to 6th. In order words the discussions we are having right now will very much depend on how the census decides to define things. Boston was a solid 4th largest metro and then it immediately lost all its thunder. Dallas went from a 3.5M relatively insignificant metro to a powerhouse at 4th.
who knows how the census will screw with our minds next?
Disclaimer: pay close attention to definitions used in the study. When first posted, people got in an uproar based on their steadfast clinging to the present system. Look at the mess that this thread turned into: //www.city-data.com/forum/city-...00-census.html
noticed how much of the area that is now Boston's CSA was removed from its MSA??? it went from being a 6M metro to being a 4.3M metro.
at the same time Miami went from 24th to 6th. In order words the discussions we are having right now will very much depend on how the census decides to define things. Boston was a solid 4th largest metro and then it immediately lost all its thunder. Dallas went from a 3.5M relatively insignificant metro to a powerhouse at 4th.
who knows how the census will screw with our minds next?
Disclaimer: pay close attention to definitions used in the study. When first posted, people got in an uproar based on their steadfast clinging to the present system. Look at the mess that this thread turned into: //www.city-data.com/forum/city-...00-census.html
Interesting. Poor Boston lol. It got completely screwed. I wonder what their reasoning is behind this.
It happened because of a change in commuting requirements.
I don't think they will be changing the commuting level this time, but they are certainly going to be checking the commuting patterns to see if the present counties still meet the requirements, and if others that didn't meet the requirements in 2003 meet them now.
I would also point out that the standards for metros in New England are slightly different than those for the rest of the country.
That's a bit myopic. It's also disingenuous to the core. You know New York is #1, and L.A. is #2 and Chicago is # 3... so why say 'in no particular order'? D.C., Philly, Boston, Dallas, Houston and S.F. all have reasons to claim #4, depending on some mix of size, influence, GDP, urban development, and location. D.C. and S.F certainly don't have a 'lock' on fourth place. The very measures by which the argument for D.C. or S.F. might be made - money and power - are exactly why Philly and Boston are better cities... they are older and more mature and rather 'over' themselves in a way their little brothers are not... yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the resident09
This thread has gone on entirely too long. The bottom line is this and honestly should not be up for discussion. The top 5/ most important cities in the US are (in no order) NY, LA, Chi, DC, and SF. You can argue many different orders but make no mistake those are the top tier bar none.
You have barely more people because your boundaries are much larger. That's not a small detail. If we took your area in square miles and applied it to Philadelphia and the surrounding area, we would easily leapfrog you. In 1950, we had almost as many people in 135 square miles as you do currently at your continued peak in 500+ square miles. Back then, in 500+ square miles we would've had 3-4 million easily. From Philadelphia all the way to Chester, Camden, and in parts to Wilmington and Reading and elsewhere, we had miles and miles of densely populated, vibrant, very important and powerful cities and other municipalities. You don't now nor will you ever have that, so no it's not a small thing that you need 500 square miles to barely edge out the 135 square mile city proper at our previous peak.
San Francisco and Boston are definitely in the conversation regardless. They've never not been important really.
Yes but look how many cities are close together in the Northeast compared to Texas. Regardless Houston is still 4th largest.
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.
haha.