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 would gladly look at the evidence you put forward but the census states that Houston and Dallas both have a little less than 9000 sq miles in land area in their MSA which would be about the size of NJ. At the CSA level, Houston is at 10.8k sq miles and DFW at 14K sq miles. Both still far less than two times NJ.
I will admit error if you show me stats, but don't just say I am wrong when I back uo my data and you have not
[quote=Huge Foodie 215;23626625]Interesting. Looking at a terrain map, I notice that there is actually more flatland that could one day connect Vancouver and Seattle than there is from Seattle to Portland.
True, and it feels a lot more developed between Seattle and Vancouver. There is actually very little dead space; it's pretty constant as far as built environment. The terrain between PDX and SEA is definitely less conducive to development the entire distance. If we do get high speed rail I could see very frequent travel between the three. It already exists without that convenience.
I would gladly look at the evidence you put forward but the census states that Houston and Dallas both have a little less than 9000 sq miles in land area in their MSA which would be about the size of NJ. At the CSA level, Houston is at 10.8k sq miles and DFW at 14K sq miles. Both still far less than two times NJ.
I will admit error if you show me stats, but don't just say I am wrong when I back uo my data and you have not
Well for one. New Jersey is 7790 square miles(non water). That will never ever change. CSA's or more dynamic and can change every few years. Dallas CSA is more than 14000 square miles. Houston is more than 12000 square miles. Both not including water. 2 New Jerseys is not 18,000 square miles. It's exactly 15,580
Well for one. New Jersey is 7790 square miles(non water). That will never ever change. CSA's or more dynamic and can change every few years. Dallas CSA is more than 14000 square miles. Houston is more than 12000 square miles. Both not including water. 2 New Jerseys is not 18,000 square miles. It's exactly 15,580
no. Houston is 10,800 not including water at the CSA level.
so that makes it almost 500 less than the two Jerseys
Well considering Indianapolis is within a days drive to 75% of the US population and the fastest growing city/metro in the midwest and 8th in the nation i would be curious too.
3 hour drive to Chicago/1.5 Hour to Cincy/2 Hour Louisville and 3 hour St Louis.
Thats pretty well linked if you ask me.
Well considering Indianapolis is within a days drive to 75% of the US population and the fastest growing city/metro in the midwest and 8th in the nation i would be curious too.
3 hour drive to Chicago/1.5 Hour to Cincy/2 Hour Louisville and 3 hour St Louis.
Thats pretty well linked if you ask me.
I don't know what metric you're using for "fastest growing city/metro in the midwest," but just looking at % growth, I don't think Indianapolis is either.
I've driven between Cincinnati and Louisville, and it'll be a long time before they grow into each other, if ever at all. Once you get south of the I-71/I-75 split, development thins out rapidly, and it's very rural until you reach the eastern side of Louisville.
Minneapolis to Chicago is basically a wall of high-rises, yet I don't see it in this discussion!
Why do people WANT their city/metros to sprawl into one-another? How does that make your city "bigger"? Technically, yes, it's more populated, but how deceptive is it to say that, for instance, Austin/San Marcos/San Antonio CSA has between 4 to 5 million people, yet has the infrastructure, urbanism and amenities of a 2 million pop. city? The ONLY thing that changed is how the Census defined the region, but the city didn't actually acquire another city and somehow magically became bigger -- they are the same places, growing at their own individual paces!
That is what I'm thinking, leave that natural land in between them...and make the already built cities denser. That unmitigated sprawl is terrible.
Interesting. Looking at a terrain map, I notice that there is actually more flatland that could one day connect Vancouver and Seattle than there is from Seattle to Portland.
True, and it feels a lot more developed between Seattle and Vancouver. There is actually very little dead space; it's pretty constant as far as built environment. The terrain between PDX and SEA is definitely less conducive to development the entire distance. If we do get high speed rail I could see very frequent travel between the three. It already exists without that convenience.
I'm all for having high speed rail connecting the three with frequent service and enough economy of scale to make it very affordable. However, I'd be really against developing out the entire swath in between the cities, I feel that would be awful.
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.
